Get your Mini Replica here: bit.ly/3nVPNak Which vehicle do you think would be the best replacement for the Bradley? Lynx, Griffin III, Redback or CV90 ?
Oh yeah, a fun thing about the CV90. As there are not enough Leopard 2 tanks around, the Swedish army is planning on making a CV90 variant that uses the Leopard 2 tank turret. It can also be fitted with mortars and other such fun things
LYNX is the better one by a bit. Still needs a bit more room for more ammo for the fighters in the back, and food and water. Keep these guys going for a bit! Slap a .50 cal on it too cause a MA Duce is always used!!
Charlie Chaplin~ Peter Sellers ~ Knife man!.. Great breakdown on what by all standards is the most important Ground weapon system for land forces around the world for Literally the next Half century ..
@@dragon12234 Leo2 turret? Great news! But its completly different size... like in all possible dimensions. Let alone the opposite layout of the vehicles.
Not just the 30s. In fact, it wasn't until 1940 that guns bigger started to become commonplace. Up to that point, 45mm, 37mm, and 2-pounder were considered very capable guns.
Textron is not hiding anything. Tactical Rifleman has published 3 videos on the Textron Rifle and LMG. Look up Tactical Rifleman and NGSW on RUclips. Video 1(Next Generation Squad Weapons l 6.8mm Weapons & Ammo for Army NGSW l EXCLUSIVE With Textron Systems): ruclips.net/video/xQigh3BEnpU/видео.html Video 2 (Next Generation Squad Weapon: Automatic Rifle | Shooting, Field Strip, and Performance | Textron): ruclips.net/video/NRuycForGhA/видео.html Video 3 (Next Generation Squad Weapon: 6.8 CT Rifle | Shooting, Field Strip, and Performance | Textron): ruclips.net/video/pYqEJsMLg_g/видео.html
They lost out support for that . They are not as boastful as Sig Sauer but they are not friendly this could have been a great opportunity for everyone , us, Cappy and Textron themselves
The reason for an active protection system over a passive one is because aps can provide protection for dumb fire munitions like heat rounds and apfsds where as passive will only jam certain guided munitions.
APFSDS - not very efficiently. The dart is more likely to be defeated by the latest gen ERA array. Rheinmerall Lynx and Hanwha Redback can be fitted with these. Lynx utilizes the same system Puma does and it is top notch.
@@infadel885 Active Protection System ? There are different options. I know that Israel made such systems, and even successfully used it in combat (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)). And it's not the only example. Another countries/companies are also working at the similar way.
You want both ideally, active is necessary against dumb systems and having both gives you two bites at the cherry to stop incoming. Anything is better than ERA.
CV90. Many models, tested, you can get it with a bofors 40mm 3P with airburst. Or Twin grenade launcher. You drive where you want. It has evolved, and will evolve even more.
The upgraded BAE CV90 or the Rheinmetall Lynx with 4th Gen ERA and comparative APS. Would be currently the Top Two choices. Older versions of the Cv90 have a proven combat record. Although only against non peer group threats.
I have a lot of love for the Redback dont get me wrong, I'm pressed for time in broad overview video. I'll be doing more indepth videos on each specific IFV in the future.
@@Taskandpurpose *Sarge:* "Hey Simmons! What's the name of that Mexican lizard? Eats all the goats." *Simmons:* "Uh, that would be the Chupacabra, sir." *Sarge:* "Hey Grif! Chupa-thingy, how 'bout that? I like it. Got a ring to it."
Remember that passive systems are largely useless against unguided weapons such as close range RPGs. They also do sweet FA against APFSDS rounds. A hard-kill system would be effective against the former, and might degrade the effectiveness of the latter.
@@Marth667 …or lose an armour asset, it’s crew AND the troops it is carrying if they haven’t dismounted. In which case losing a few infantry to the APS would be a fair trade.
@@Taskandpurpose in theory both should work in tandem. 👍🙂 If the ATGM is coming in from long range then the passive system can use smoke and dazzlers in an attempt to spoof it, which would be safer for infantry dismounts and save on interceptor munitions. But if that doesn’t work then the active system can intercept it when it gets close. For close range threats it would default to the active system. In theory at least it would be good to have multi-layered redundancy, such as PPS, then APS, then ERA/Spaced/slat armour, then the Hull armour of the vehicle itself to minimise the chance of penetration. Inside the vehicle, fire suppression and CBRN systems, anti-spooling layers, suspended seats and infantry PPE/body armour can help reduce the risk of casualties in the event of a breach. Obviously no defence is perfect, but this seems the best possible with current technology.
CV90 is perfect imo. Might be based, since I am Swedish, but still. Goes anywhere, is combat proven and has a 40 mm auto cannon. It looks amazing as well and might be one of the cheaper options.
The key is, I would hope, having sophisticated anti-drone detection and destruction capabilities. The bofors 40 is legendary, but the CV90 has compromised ready rounds compared to a 35mm. That’s what I’m most concerned about now; not killing enemy IFVs but rather UAVs.
CV-90 is the only one that I think can be useful in hard winter climate since it's the one built for it from the beginning, it's build to handle lots of snow, swamps and rough terrain.
@@beerthug Not really. Its been a perpetual debate since the 40s and the first APCs. Some (bean counters and the "Infantry-centric") want to stuff as many bodies in each vehicle as possible, while those who are more mechanized oriented want more tracks and guns vs. dismounts. Largely its been the later that have won.
The CV90 platform design has continuously evolved in steps from Mk0 to current MkIV with advances in technology and in response to changing battlefield requirements. The Swedish version of the main infantry fighting vehicle is fitted with a turret from Bofors that is equipped with a 40 mm Bofors autocannon, in combination with the 40mm Bofors 3P rounds.
I've got the impression the 35 mm canon makes more sense though and you can use SPIKE LR vs tanks. Does the others have any "stealth" features like the CV 90 ADAPTIV? The Korean looks large. One supposed feature of the CV90 is the size and that it can go into a standard freight train whatever thingy.
Major General Coffman hit the nail on the head when he said they need to stick with a carefully devised set of requirements and stop continually changing their minds. When I was on active duty developing space systems, I got a reputation as a real SOB from the operational community for refusing to let them keep changing the original acquisition requirements. However, the systems I managed were delivered on time and on budget, and worked the way they were supposed to. Allowing a continual moving of the development goalposts is why Pentagon developments are so ungodly expensive and often get cancelled for long delays and failed performance.
The CV90 should be the winner here. The suspension upgrades are incredible and the space for the dismounts is excellent. I’ve only reviewed armored vehicles for 30 years so….
@@AB-ng7go Kurganets-25 is Potemkin village like everything new from Russia, BMP in a new coat. You are not even technologically advanced enough to build your own termovisions...
@@K3mr0n no i think you're describing the U.S. material. U.S. not advanced enough to build its own that's why almost every component in all of its units comes from another country, like the M777 built in Britain and the Abrams tank barrel (and most other components) built in Germany. By the way, how come U.S. still uses Russian rocket engines to go to space? U.S. is not advanced enough to build its own rocket engines, but Russia is? HAHAHA #owned
@@AB-ng7go are you kidding me. Only the Atlas rocket uses them, SpaceX, Blue Origin uses their own. Also USA engine in ULAs Delta rockets. M777 is made by BAE Systems which has factories all over the USA. Abrams tanks have all parts licenced in the USA. You have always been a peasants, go back to your steps
@@K3mr0n HAHAHA nice face saving cover. Not a single American unit has domestically produced parts. Every single u.s. tank and vehicle uses primarily main components from other countries. U.S. literally cannot bring astronauts to space without Russia, begging them not only for Russian engines but begging them for rides to the space station. THe U.S. is at least 30-40 years behind in technology behind Russia...an EMBARRASSMENT...the world's laughing stock.... first object in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first animal in space, first object on moon, first object on venus, first object on mars....Russia has every world's first and dominated the U.S. for 70 years and still going...you are so weak. The Kurganets is superior to anything the U.S. is capable of producing. The laughable Bradley with its 15mm gun LMFAOOOO. One single Kurganets is estimated to be able to destroy about 5-7 Bradleys on its own according to experts, but personally I'd say it's more like 10-12 based on my calculations
Cappy has come a long way with these videos. He would stutter and look timid in earlier videos, but now he’s an absolute Chad. Your testosterone levels must be off the charts, Chris.
I think it's pretty obvious why the Army is finally getting serious about next-gen systems: Its posture is switching from COIN back to near-peer. It's hard to justify a new IFV or rifle when you're dominating the opponents you're fighting with what you already have. But when you are thinking about the next Great Power War, being on the cutting edge matters.
Developing systems that are based across several thousand units is not easy and requires decades of development. And normally when the ideas first start at the design phase they have to factor in future development technologies. No other world power is at that level only Israel is developing systems of that advanced nature but they are doing it in a very limited sector and not through a super power scale military.
Go with the CV90! They are awesome vehicles that can drive through almost any terrain, over 1 meter deep snow in the forest? No problem the CV90 can handle it. The Norwegians picked it for a reason, the bradley had to be air lifted to the test ground as not to get stuck during selection trials…the CV90 drove to the test site through dense forest and deep snow. The CV90 has proven itself in the desserts/mountains of Afghanistan also. Slap that grumman 50 mm auto cannon on it and call it a day, no need to waste more time.
I've seen the Norwegian one in action. It's a beast. Seen the inside never sat in it but it was better than the Bradley. It just seems everyone is forgetting where are the dismounts going to store gear? The biggest downfall of the Bradley was space. Ammo in the floor... cool, except each Grint had 80lbs of gear ..... on the floor in front of them.
IDK about the newcomer, but all are very solid options with the exception of the General Dynamic's using Ajax although other than the vibration issue, it isn't bad. Also the Redback is a substantial improvement over the original K21. Hanwha's Redback is already being considered against the Lynx in Australia. Keep in mind that while the Redback is larger, the Lynx is far more cramped for dismounts. Both are very comparable. CV90 is also an excellent IFV. You really can't go wrong with either of these 3 options.
Wrong the Lynx is a much larger vehicle and the Redback is made to carry 9 dismounts instead of 8 but history crew areas are smaller for Asian manufacturers. Japan submarine for Australia for example had to be enlarged to suit the Australian crew even though it wasn’t picked.
Interestingly enough Australian soldiers have reportedly said that they prefer the AS21 Redback (The RedBack is an Australian spider) over the Lynx for the Land 400 project. The AS21 was specifically created for the Australian Land 400 which is why it was named the RedBack (Australians have an affinity with this deadly spider). It's going to be down to the tech and protection both of which the average citizen is not going to see.
Having worked for L3 in aerospace, I’d say the military would be wise to avoid that one. Overpromise, underdeliver, and charge way too much is the L3 way
Thats the business model. I guarantee you that by 2028 neither this vehicle, nor the debate about its selection will look anything like it does today. If history is a teacher I expect we will hear in 2028 that the Bradley follow-on troop carrier is being tested and should be the field by 2040. When they aren't busy with the military the aerospace companies have a side job soaking NASA out of billions. The difference is that they sell the military a tank one time, and wait for it to be destroyed or worn out to sell another. They sell a rocket for billions of dollars, use it once and throw it away. Its like throwing away a fighter after one mission.
The Russians: "Aha, smarty boy, we will operate the vehicles remotely, but with officers standing behind operators with a pistol to their heads. Hahahaa."
Russian Udar, or Vihr as Cappy called it, does NOT carry passengers. It has UAVs or a smaller RCV in the back. Maybe the Americans are crazy enough to have a drone operator drive humans in to the battle - Russians are not.
Just like with Sig with the m9 replacement and the possible M4 replacement, would it make sense to have Oskosh have the contract since they have the Humvee replacement already? Easy parts manufacturing and dual contract compatibility go a long way, especially when dealing with possible Eastern threats.
As an ex-mortarman, the CV-90 size turret ring can accommodate the twin barrel 120mm mortar system. This devastating, as well as crew protected design sold me on the CV90yrs ago. Exposed troops has become such a non-reason due to current technological standards, that any fellas that don't have a good reason to have cover, has come down to pure negligence these days. Particularly when one's under the threat of counter battery fire, time is just something you no longer have! There are some really good choices these days, that I could see the final pick coming down to something of a simple reason as being the ability not to do it's initial task, but an additional ability that the others don't. I.E. better ATGM's, additional armour, passive or hard-kill protection systems, who knows what else, that's just some of the armament things not to mention weight, cost, availability, the list goes on and on. Glad I live in Canada, lol...
CV-90 is a 35yr old platform, it has a flat bottom that has to be reengineered and redesigned to make it mine resistant bottom, the electronics though are top notch, BAE, has taking what they have learned with the M2A4 and M7A4, and stuffed that into the CV90 Mk IV IFV (NGCV). The likely winner will be the new development Lynx or Griffin that is not based on the AJAX, rather it like the AJAX is based on the GDELS ASCOD II. The AJAX is a troubled program, it's issues can be attributed to the GDELS Santa Barbara Spanish Factories, their work and QC on the AJAX hulls is subpar, unlike the work they performed for the Spanish Army's Pizarro VCI and the Austrians ULAN AFV, which have had no exemplary performance, which demonstrates the vehicle platform's functionality. Fair to say the Brits, went cheap, like they have been doing on most defense matters, to save money the MOD chose to source the hulls for the AJAX from Spain, instead if setting up a production line in Wales. The Spanish made hulls are of inconsistent lengths, and had non-parallel sides, which means the vibration problems do not manifest in a uniform manner making it exceedingly difficult to isolate, this fundamental flaw in quality inconsistencies can be blamed on both the MoD for not having QC inspections at the plant and for GDELS not adhering to inspections of quality control. So far these flaws have in testing produced excessive vibration while moving, damaging electronic systems and preventing the armament from stabilising. Overall this looks like another Nimrod MRA4.
@@johnmartin6420 CV90 Is an older platform that's true, but does have some advantages the others don't. I have no problem with the Lynx, as long as it has an anti-tank missile system, such as a spike launcher or such. All I will say is that the Griffin looks suspiciously like the Ajax without all the fluff added onto it. So, I'll stick with the CV90, or Lynx. Either one should be adequate to get the job done. Again though, I have to admit my bias as the CV90's mortar attachment ability would be quite an improvement over the open top LAV type launcher! js
@@beerthug The Brit AJAX, as I said is a National Development of the ASCOD II, the same as the GRIFFIN Family is a development of the ASCOD II, the difference is that it's running gear, suspension and hulls are made in the USA with steel from Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI). The Brits went, cheap and are reaping that effort, the Griffin ll MPF prototype has experienced no issues, it's performance so far is flawless, to the point that if the Army selects it over the BAE M8, the Griffin lll will be in the pole position to win the (NGCV).
@@johnmartin6420 Hey if it works out for the best then so be it. I'm no expert in mechanical engineering, just a soldier who started off in a mechanized infantry brigade, and then decided that getting over my fear of heights would be to switch my green beret for a maroon one(didn't work). Former Canadian Armed Forces, hence the beret colour difference. I'm just an older fella who basis a lot of his opinions on what he sees on RUclips. One thing I will never overlook though, is any piece of kit and it's ability/reputation in live theatre. If something's proven and it works, That will go along way in my book, compared to something that I'm told 'will' be the next greatest, sinced sliced bread. Hope all works out for the men who have to be deployed in the next-gen of IFV's.....p.s The 40ton calvary scout vehicle for the Brits, admittedly put an instant bias towards it for me, especially compared to their speed demons of the past! Speaking of speed and reconnaissance, why have the other NATO airborne troops been so hesitant to adopt the Bundesweir's lightweight, two man, tracked vehicles that are last I heard, either armed with the TOW launcher, or I believe the 25mm bushmaster with AP and Frag rds? Any insight on this?
Rheinmetal has the best papers. With their Boxer they have already a vehicle that can be modified for specific missions, in the field in 20 or 30 min. That's a gamechanger
You have remote for after the troop dismount. You let the squad man the vehicle while they are in it, then pass control of the vehicle to a remote pilot/gunner afterwards. This also allows for the contingency that the remote control has been jammed (all too likely ).
Doesn't that kinda mean that you can potentially be down 3 people without warning? I also imagine that the enemy might not be very cooperative with the timing of jamming.
I served in the old Bradley Cav Scout version in the first Gulf War. Some of the upgrades taxed the Bradley's electrical supply. I hope the new vehicle can sit a full squad in reasonable comfort with better weapons and armor than the old Bradley. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the old Bradley as I served in them for nearly 11 years.
Honestly, the CV-90 Mk IV, Lynx KF-41, and AS-21 Redback are very capable vehicles (I don't have such faith on the Griffin III with current debacle on the Ajax and it's doesn't have the capacity for the 3 + 8 configuration).
I am very excited for a new IFV for our armed forces. Bradley always sounded like a big compromise. Hope they do tons of testing with the actual soldiers who operate these and incorporate feedback. We need procurement in the army that serves the soldier’s needs first and foremost. Very cool, thanks for a great video as always crappy!!
@Robert Sears That’s the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. That’s like saying a Chevrolet from the 60s is better then a Porsche 918spyder today. The Rheinmetal vehicle would be amazing. The Australian army is the second biggest user of the Rheinmetal Boxer armoured fighting vehicle and the Germans clearly know how to build amazing vehicles.
You mentioned favouring Softkill APS over Hardkill APS because of it deflecting incoming projectiles. However I think youre missing an important point there, which is that deflected doesn't mean deactivated. They will still explode somewhere nearby. Not to mention that you cant jam or dazzle something like a BILL-2, Khrizantema or Spike-LR. Basicly anything that is operator guided on a wire or a dumb fire rocket like the RPG-7 can only be defended against effectively with hardkill system.
The Rheinmetal entrant would be the best by far. The Australian army put out their own submission to replace the ASLAV armoured fighting vehicle and went with the Rheinmetal Boxer making Australia currently the second biggest user of the vehicle until the UK order is fulfilled where we’ll be the third biggest. And it’s fully modular and an amazing piece of kit.
Also as I read heared that the Griffon/Ajax is the best armored I rised my eye brow the puma/lynx (lynx is just a stretched out puma) because of its modular armor packs the basic armor isn't so strong but put on the highly advanced armor on and a rpg 7 cann only scratch the armor (10mm penetration) and since it is top secret how much punishment the armor cann withstand we have to assume that it is around MBT levels
Just a quick comment, at the moment, I am recovering from a Grand Mal Stroke.(I lived) I watch your stuff constantly, to try and improve my ability to focus. Great job. Thanks!
Now I know why I'm having issues getting that nVidia RTX 3080Ti. Your presentations are always, funny, interesting and informative. Thank you for all the work you do.
One thing that was not noted here: there are tertiary advantages to not having soldiers inside a vehicle besides not risking crew; perhaps the biggest among them is that you have vehicles that, in mission critical situations, can be sacrificed to keep other vehicles going/alive -- if one vehicle is severely damaged without repair being available, you have enough room to move any potential injured back to base without leaving anyone behind; if you need to send a vehicle on a high-risk mission with no other options, you have a candidate without having to risk any lives; if you need to cannibalize parts because supply lines are overrun or decimated (say, near-peer adversary scenario, or maybe you're just stuck in the desert), then you have a vehicle to do that. It opens up dozens of options and tactics that would otherwise be untenable without having to have a person sacrifice themselves.
With the vehicle being remote controlled it can carry far heavier armor that means RPG would not be as effective at taking out the control system. Whole new city based tank systems could be created.
There is a 100% chance that the "optionally manned" feature gets nixed at the brigade level when dudes start using them to run over mines and IEDs instead of waiting for EOD.
CV90, hands down. Spike, 40 mm Bofors, ADAPTIVE, Barracuda camouflage, mobility above and beyond, ACM, programmable ammo, etc etc. Comes in IFV, command vehicle, Armadillo APC, Thor automatic mortar, even a tank killer with 120 mm cannon.
2 года назад
Thor is manual mortar isn't it? Then again maybe the Americans could convince them to go AMOS.
@ Too many technical issues for a fully automatic (breech loaded) mortar to make it cheap and effective. So Sweden went with a scaled back version that is much simpler, and works.
They should look at Australia's LAND 400 phase 2 program that's in its final year of trials. Both CV90 and Ajax variant lost out to the Lynx and Redback to go to the trial and eval phase. Both Lynx and Redback each have their own pros and cons. If Redback wins then it's definitely better as Rheinmettal already was awarded the phase 3 contract for its APC variant of the Lynx and has parts commonality with the IFV variant. Fingers crossed the Aus government chooses the best platform from the diggers perspective instead making backroom deals for inferior equipment eg. MRH90 and ARH Tigers are being withdrawn from service early to midlife to be replaced with Apache and Blackhawk.
The GDELS AJAX seems to need major overhaul to have any chance. It is an overweight version of the Austrian-Spanish IFV ASCOD, however the vehicle weight was increased from 30,000Kgs to 42,000Kgs and this had it's toll on the suspension. The CV90 is a very good and tested IFV, but is an old design. The LYNX and the Korean REDBACK are competing head to head in Australia for the new IFV there, so I think one of these two could be a a Bradley replacement. The LYNX has some very advanced options, but German vehicles are usually very expensive. The 9 seat arrangement, most certainly can be adapted on the other 8 seater vehicles as well. The Korean IFV proposal, almost certainly will be cheaper than the LYNX, with similar electronics while many of it's systems were developed in Israel. The active protection system shown is the Israeli Iron Fist, by Rafael. The advantage of this system is that it can also throw off balance APFSDS projectiles reducing their effectiveness. The major disadvantage is that it only has two shots per side of the vehicle before requiring reloading. An alternative active protection system is the also Israeli Trophy by Elbit Systems. Apparently this system has reloadable exploding plates firing shrapnel towards the incoming RPG or ATGW, kind of like a Claymore Mine. The advantage of the system is it's fast automatic reload capability and the disadvantage is that it cannot deal with APFSDS projectiles. One thing worth noting is that both the LYNX and the REDBACK have rubber tracks, a technology that reduces noise, vibration and maintenance requirements. There are also kits available to temporarily repair battle damage to a track until it is replaced. It will be very interesting to see how both the Australian and the US competitions, regarding the new IFV selection, go.
REDBACK - is too big CV90 - is now , an old design , Bradley was introduced 1981 , CV90 1992 ... but US military need FUTURE IFV LYNX - best of them , but most expensive AJAX - crap all the way Startup - nobody cares 1. US Army will chose one of two REDBACK or LYNX , I would put my money on REDBACK as US are "closer" to Korea , and cheaper , and Democratic government 1. want to save cash on army , 2 . go against China , and Korea is closer to action , 3. US , Germany relation are not great . 2. CV90 , is old design is only 12 years younger that Bradley , so there is no point to introduce such old technology , and after all CV90 was designed for Swedish army to defend Sweden , not for invading other countries as US do , it can make it when bunch of taliban cave pedophiles shot at it with RPG , but wont work against more serious opponent . 3. Ajax ... why this crap is taken seriously ? 4. Startup ... is just joke right ?
Oh god, not AJAX, with the amount of money we've spent on that we could have built a 3rd QE-class carrier. The main problem was that the crew headsets were picking up and amplifying the vibrations pumping them straight into the crew's eardrums. It really is time for the British Army to get its arse in gear and get as good in procurement as the RN and RAF have been in recent years.
If the military is looking to add remotely operated weapons platforms, the initial systems shouldn’t be troop carriers, and instead utilize the advantages at come with a remotely operated vehicle and allow for smaller, faster and more mobile platforms.
Its going for an optionally remote system, not an entirely remote one. I think optionally remote systems are good though. Imagine there being issues with an IFV on the field. You just drive up another IFV to the squad and your litterally set. Logistics vehicles are already going optionally autonomous, especially after Iraq.
Speaking of remote capability they might want to include air plane EW equipment to jam the enemies remote vehicles and a few items that mess with their situational awareness systems. 😉 one other thing to think of is the Air Force is going for drone wingman aircraft maybe a drone or some drones as 50mm armed flankers would help with reconnaissance and enhanced firepower from additional vantage points.
@@tbthedozer yeah, I would think a ground based remote wingman concept would be the logical first choice, if only because you want to insure that gunfire support isn’t fully disabled due to area wide jamming, and the closer a control station is to a drone vehicle, the harder it would be to jam it. I could see a larger armored command vehicle containing not only field commanders, but 2-4 drone vehicle operators, that operated the remote armored vehicles to provide direct fire support. This would allow the command vehicle to be larger, and more heavily armored, but by having it following a ways behind the troops, and their direct fire support drones, they would be harder to take out. Although the best case, would be to have a smaller, portable control unit available within an infantry platoon and/or company, so they could control units from the front line as well, especially if the command unit is disabled or has issues (maybe even a have the front line controls have a means of directly connection, such as a reinforced fiber optic cable,so even if a battlefield is jammed to death, the drone units could still support their infantry units.
The case for having a good tank destroyer is well known and documented. Germany’s World War 2 Stug had no turret, and it could only rotate its gun by slewing the vehicle to the left or right using its tracks. It couldn’t fire on the move. And, it had thinner armour than the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Overall, the Sturmgeschütz III shouldn’t have been the extraordinary success it became; but according to the Tank Museum at Bovington, by the time the War ended, it had destroyed an estimated 30,000 Russian tanks - this was not only more than any other German combat vehicle, but also more than any Allied tank.
The StuG wasn't designed as a TD, it was designed as an assault gun to support infantry. It became a TD because.... you tend to encounter tanks on a battlefield and the general desperation when Germany was forced on the defensive. StuGs and Jagd things were developed not because they were great, but because they were the cheapest way to get a big gun and sufficient armor into the smallest vehicle. If Germany had unlimited resources, its very likely the Panzer Corps would have fielded nothing but heavier turreted tanks like Panthers and Tigers. StuGs would have been that weird thing the Artillery guys used with the Infantry.
@@anonymoususer3561 It had a tiny arc it could adjust left and right, but we're talking -10/10 degrees. If a target popped up outside of that arc, the whole vehicle had to be turned to lay the gun on target.
It needs firing ports. Also needs a larger turret. Heavier armor. Must fit fewer troops, hold more ammo. Let’s just make it amphibious while we’re at it. Have it done Monday. Good talk, I’m off to play 18 holes with the Senator.
@@kousand9917 also need a naval version and while we’re at it add requirements for one to have flip out rotors and be able to head to head duel an Apache in the dark, while asleep. Boys are boys and tanks are tanks.
@@4x4ozventures10 I know what upu mean . Did the Australian MoD already make a decision? I was very Happy with Estonia taking the CV90. Just wish we'd put a larger 90 or 120 mm Tank gun on it.
@@MrHrKaidoOjamaaVKJV yeah it’s between the lynx and the Redback … I think they are still testing but I’m hoping they go with lynx but I’m wary bc if it’s anything like the Puma 🙃
Passive APS are decent enough against guided munitions and they might offer a bit more protection for dismounts. However, there are certain other matters to consider. One would be upgraded technology for the seeker heads, e.g. home on jam modes. Another options would be upgraded data bases and decoy resistance, akin to seeker heads in modern IR AA missiles, which supposedly can reject flares as targets and reacquire the plane. However, the real downside to passive APS systems are unguided munitions. It doesn't matter if it is an RPG or an APFSDS shell, many modern Active APS can engage and defeat those, a passive can't. Which, given the choice, I'd rather have an active system on the vehicle, so that there is a vehicle left for the dismounts to return to.
Soft and hard kill aps. When will people finally learn to properly call it. Do you know how stupid it sounds: passive active protection system. It's a contradiction
Australia is building some Rheinmetall units as scout vehicles with a follow up unit competition between Rheinmentall and Hanwa Redback for troop carriers. These vehicles are being/will be built in Australia. They are replacements for M113 units which have been in service since the Vietnam conflict.12/03/2122
We don't care. We the people are the customers and the customer is always right. If we want to meme on thier corporations name we are going to. If they have a problem with that we'll then that's a a red flag.
The CV90 would improve by widening the chassis just enough to fit a center bench seat in the back, and thereby boost its possible passenger capacity to 12 in exchange for a moderate width increase. Even if they don't want to put that many troops inside a single vehicle, it gives flexibility if one vehicle goes down or if you need extra enablers. It also makes it a viable choice for the Marine Corps, who likes to organize their infantry in larger squads than the Army does. I also think the CV90 is a good option because they already have a proven diesel-electric hybrid drive, which will be incredibly valuable for a lot of different reasons.
Unfortunately, the Marines got rid of tanks, so I don’t believe that they’d invest in a system such as this. I’d think that the CV90 might be a good choice for them, since they’re trying to stay light and mobile, so who knows?
@@DocMitchell69 They won't be using MBTs but IFVs will be more important than ever to the USMC for that reason, they will be the heaviest armor they have available.
@@DocMitchell69 Doesn't swim. That's really the biggest issue. The Marine Corps needs to own the littoral environment, not engage in mechanized combat, to still exist as a branch in 30 years. They can't duplicate army capabilities.
don't tempt me I might do a video on that haha. I used to ride motorcycles a couple years ago but I sold it because it got too dangerous for me - too risky. I'll go deploy to Iraq again but I won't ride motorcycles.
All of these IFVs seem like great choices, however the Griffen III seems like it maybe the worst of the bunch but i dont know much about Point Blank's IFV. I think the Lynx will be chosen as its modularity puts it a step above the others.
I see very little downside. Remote control doesn't mean it has to be controlled from 10km away. It could be controlled by someone aboard, or sitting on the roof sipping a non-alcoholic cocktail with them cute little umbrellas.
Very good citing CRS reports. I wish more people would. Nitpick: you said in the budget document there is a reference to aCRS report. Actually, you were looking at a CRS report citing another CRS report. Nitpick, esp since you actually cited proper stuff. Well done.
Oshkosh made a light tank, Rheinmetall and BAE made a sexy SOB, and General Dynamics will give the US army a reason to keep singing Blood On The Risers and adopt their own to sing while being deafened by the engines XD
From working on this platform for a while I think the technology within the vehicle needs to be upgraded massively. I believe that’s the main issue with the Bradley. So many new systems being integrated into a old platform is the main issue with the brad. The old platforms can’t handle all the new tech being fit in there
the CV90 is CLEARLY the best option here. THe damn thing is already built. And have you seen what they are trying to do with the CV90120? the ability for a vehicle to cloak itself from thermal sights is RIDICULOUS and awesome.
few corrections man, (vids pretty good btw). Lance 2.0 sports Mk30/2 main gun, same as Puma (as name suggests its a 30mm autocannon, good airburst rounds though). koreans use base form K21 (which AS21 is based of, better gun IMO, being 40mm and all no missile launcher though, PIP will solve that problem though, that + KAPS hard-kill). Griffin III is ASCOD chassis (spanish/austrian joint project, hence the name btw, companies making it were later bought by GD), not Ajax, that thing itself is also based from ASCOD chassis (see the thing literally everywhere on the net these days), updated 2 model (by updated i mean bigger) and in all fairness that thing is FUGLY although i guess nice way to mod it for i dunno, a light tank, (Griffin II), if it can be modded like that (not 100% sure on that part). as for APS (not correction or anything, just a opinion) think hard-kill is better despite problems it poses for dismounts, because hard-kills can face larger variety of threats, be it RPG or ATGM. because soft-kill systems might or might not affect the incoming missile (depends on system and missile its facing). israelis did adjust their infantry tactics when working with Merkava 4M (has trophy APS the same one new M1s are fielding) Main battle tanks, so i don't see why US shouldn't follow suit. outta the 4 platforms though? i think i'd take KF41, good autocannon, pretty "modular" (ugh can't escape that one, can i?) can carry a full rifle squad? perfect. although knowing US national pride might get in the way.
Thanks for the corrections and the added insight! agreed KF41 is my favorite pick so far too. I don't think National pride will factor in since they're working under their US Division "American Rheinmetall" for the bid.
One feature no one seems to talk about is IED protection. I saw a design on Future Weapons, a show on the military channel, that had a sloped undercarriage APC rather than a flat bottom that angled the explosion to the sides of vehicle instead of up into the cabin like a flat bottom would. I can’t remember the name of it, but it wasn’t a IFV as much as an APC.
"US trying to catch up with the Russian military" and "30% of the Russian combat power consist of entirely remote controlled autonomous robotic platform". And now in Ukraine we see that 100% of Russian combat power... is potato :D
I have to say it though. If I got to make the choice, I would pick the CV90. It is combat proven and is already developed and in-service. The US Army won't need to spend millions in R&D because it's already here. Still want my 3090 tho, yes BAe, I'm looking at you
Knowing the US army, it'll be the Griffin III. If it was my choice however, as a proud Red Team fan, I'd pick the Redback. It has Red in it's name, what more could you want?
The Australian Army is currently assessing contenders for the Land 400 project, which is to supply IFV to the ADF. They started with 4 contenders with the CV90 eliminated because of costs and the Ajax because it was unsuitable. The last 2 standing are the Lynx and Redback. The army is currently conducting risk mitigation with each bid supplying 3 prototypes. Two for field evaluation and one for blast testing. Most expect the Lynx to win, mainly because the Army selected the Boxer for its reconnaissance vehicle. However, the army has announced it’s purchasing the K9/K10 SP gun system from Hanwha. Only time will tell with the little information coming out from the testing team saying both vehicles are performing very well.
The Hanwha Redback (Oshkosh bid) is not in use with the ROK Army yet, but it might be adopted instead of buying more K21 IFVs (also made by Hanwha). The Redback is currently being considered by the Australian Army for service.
I'd love to see an autoloading Spike missile launcher with 8 rounds in line with the 30mm main gun like the 100mm gun/launcher on the BMP3. Also, make sure to have a 7.62 armed RWS. Give it seats for a crew of 3 and 8 passengers.
I am surprised that no Western Defense company has not went with a low pressure cannon arrangement, since the Chinese has done so already. A Western IFV armed with a 105mm low pressure gun firing old HESH rounds, alongside a 30 or 40mm would be very cool. The only source of concern would be that 105mm may be a bit small for the ATGMs needed. The Israeli LAHAT ATGM could be used as it is tandem charge and has 900mm of Penetration, but I would imagine squeezing more penetration out of a missile limited in size would be difficult.
@@CharliMorganMusic Drop the dismount to 2 squads of 12 (2 teams of 6 in each vehicle x4 Vic's, totalling 24 troops instead of 27. The 2 extra seats per vehicle are for guys in HQ squad, like the medic, FOs, RTO, drone operator, and possibly a sniper or mortar team from HHC.
@@CharliMorganMusic The BMP-3 is rated to stop 30mm AP from the front and 14.5mm elsewhere, for an IFV that is good protection. You also have to remember the fact that this is a vehicle that entered service shortly prior to the collapse of the USSR, a newer IFV that came 20-30 years after would certainly have better armor.
The Stryker is and always has been garbage. I was Light before Iraq, so we were mostly helicopter borne. They took our birds, gave us Hmmvws, which we used pretty good awesome. Then the MTOE shifted. Stryker was a very good idea in theory, but it destroyed the espirit de corps of the unit and it only exists because of NAFTA. It provided nothing over the purchase of 2 UpArmored Hmmvws. The only system that they could say that they had that wasn’t available to be fitted in a Hmmvw was the Mre heater. I was literally told this by the GD instructor during my unit’s opnet.
modern hard kill systems make skinny with a RPG useless...since IDF introduced Trophy in 2011 not a single vehicle fitted with Trophy was hit by a ATGM or RPG even if a skinny shoot nearly from point blank range ...the reason why the US Army and the German Army introduce Trophy on the M1A2 and the Leo2
Get your Mini Replica here: bit.ly/3nVPNak
Which vehicle do you think would be the best replacement for the Bradley? Lynx, Griffin III, Redback or CV90 ?
Wait crappy so you know if their are any images on the point blank competitor
Oh yeah, a fun thing about the CV90. As there are not enough Leopard 2 tanks around, the Swedish army is planning on making a CV90 variant that uses the Leopard 2 tank turret.
It can also be fitted with mortars and other such fun things
LYNX is the better one by a bit. Still needs a bit more room for more ammo for the fighters in the back, and food and water. Keep these guys going for a bit! Slap a .50 cal on it too cause a MA Duce is always used!!
Charlie Chaplin~ Peter Sellers ~ Knife man!.. Great breakdown on what by all standards is the most important Ground weapon system for land forces around the world for Literally the next Half century ..
@@dragon12234 Leo2 turret? Great news! But its completly different size... like in all possible dimensions.
Let alone the opposite layout of the vehicles.
Props for the District 9 t-shirt.
Funny how an IFV could have a larger main gun than tanks from the 1930s.
And weigh as much...or more...
Not just the 30s. In fact, it wasn't until 1940 that guns bigger started to become commonplace. Up to that point, 45mm, 37mm, and 2-pounder were considered very capable guns.
@@shaider1982 Cavalry tank (singular).
@@CharliMorganMusic The British male tanks had 6-pounder 57mm naval guns in 1916
@@alantoon5708 Yeah, I was just thinking that. One of those guys massed over 40 tons. That's MORE than a M4A1.
Cappy is clearly still salty about Textron not letting him to shoot their new gun.😂
#whatistextronhiding
Maybe they'll give him a consolation prize of some of their non woven goods that go into tons of shoes 😆
Textron is not hiding anything. Tactical Rifleman has published 3 videos on the Textron Rifle and LMG. Look up Tactical Rifleman and NGSW on RUclips.
Video 1(Next Generation Squad Weapons l 6.8mm Weapons & Ammo for Army NGSW l EXCLUSIVE With Textron Systems): ruclips.net/video/xQigh3BEnpU/видео.html
Video 2 (Next Generation Squad Weapon: Automatic Rifle | Shooting, Field Strip, and Performance | Textron): ruclips.net/video/NRuycForGhA/видео.html
Video 3 (Next Generation Squad Weapon: 6.8 CT Rifle | Shooting, Field Strip, and Performance | Textron): ruclips.net/video/pYqEJsMLg_g/видео.html
@@Taskandpurpose 3:10 The textron roast im dying!
They lost out support for that . They are not as boastful as Sig Sauer but they are not friendly this could have been a great opportunity for everyone , us, Cappy and Textron themselves
The reason for an active protection system over a passive one is because aps can provide protection for dumb fire munitions like heat rounds and apfsds where as passive will only jam certain guided munitions.
APFSDS - not very efficiently. The dart is more likely to be defeated by the latest gen ERA array. Rheinmerall Lynx and Hanwha Redback can be fitted with these. Lynx utilizes the same system Puma does and it is top notch.
I couldn't find the Aps in the google store. What is it under?
@@infadel885
Active
Protection
System
?
There are different options. I know that Israel made such systems, and even successfully used it in combat (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)). And it's not the only example. Another countries/companies are also working at the similar way.
@@ІванКоваль-й5ж I know my man. I know
You want both ideally, active is necessary against dumb systems and having both gives you two bites at the cherry to stop incoming. Anything is better than ERA.
CV90. Many models, tested, you can get it with a bofors 40mm 3P with airburst. Or Twin grenade launcher. You drive where you want. It has evolved, and will evolve even more.
Does it have APS compatibility?
@@uku4171 probably.
The upgraded BAE CV90 or the Rheinmetall Lynx with 4th Gen ERA and comparative APS. Would be currently the Top Two choices. Older versions of the Cv90 have a proven combat record. Although only against non peer group threats.
Who has combat record against peer group threats these days?
Ukraine maybe...
I understand CV90s are already in Ukraine, Polish units I believe.
Redback carry 9 dismount: negative,risk of high casualty
Lynx carry 9 dismount :positive, revolutionary
Wat?
I have a lot of love for the Redback dont get me wrong, I'm pressed for time in broad overview video. I'll be doing more indepth videos on each specific IFV in the future.
That's Field-grade officer logic, right there!
Whoever wrote that has an agreement with the manufacturer to get a cushy job after he retires.
Corruption at it's finest!
Damn, Stryker also has 9 dismounts. They don't matter tho, stryker peasants smh.
the Redback has 9+3, the Lynx 9+2, so obviously the lynx has far fewer people in it...
Rvb Season 1 reference in 2021, you have doubled my respect for you Cappy.
I've been watching since there was still only a season 1 haha
@@Taskandpurpose
*Sarge:* "Hey Simmons! What's the name of that Mexican lizard? Eats all the goats."
*Simmons:* "Uh, that would be the Chupacabra, sir."
*Sarge:* "Hey Grif! Chupa-thingy, how 'bout that? I like it. Got a ring to it."
Geopolitics
ruclips.net/video/VcD-kXe6Jog/видео.html
Remember that passive systems are largely useless against unguided weapons such as close range RPGs. They also do sweet FA against APFSDS rounds. A hard-kill system would be effective against the former, and might degrade the effectiveness of the latter.
Yes that’s true , good point. the plan is it have both on there I believe . The army seems focused on active protection though
Its a horrible position to be in, lose an armour asset or possibly a few infantrymen as a result of the munitions going off.
@@Marth667 …or lose an armour asset, it’s crew AND the troops it is carrying if they haven’t dismounted. In which case losing a few infantry to the APS would be a fair trade.
@@Taskandpurpose in theory both should work in tandem. 👍🙂 If the ATGM is coming in from long range then the passive system can use smoke and dazzlers in an attempt to spoof it, which would be safer for infantry dismounts and save on interceptor munitions. But if that doesn’t work then the active system can intercept it when it gets close. For close range threats it would default to the active system. In theory at least it would be good to have multi-layered redundancy, such as PPS, then APS, then ERA/Spaced/slat armour, then the Hull armour of the vehicle itself to minimise the chance of penetration. Inside the vehicle, fire suppression and CBRN systems, anti-spooling layers, suspended seats and infantry PPE/body armour can help reduce the risk of casualties in the event of a breach. Obviously no defence is perfect, but this seems the best possible with current technology.
Well that's why more armor is applied every upgrade.
CV90 is perfect imo. Might be based, since I am Swedish, but still. Goes anywhere, is combat proven and has a 40 mm auto cannon. It looks amazing as well and might be one of the cheaper options.
I'm a big fan of the CV90.
hahah looks amazing!? I hope that's not a top priority for the MOD! ;)
Tax payer will get raped for the price.. price is no option..
Also They can have mortar variants, 120m tank busters, AA variants and artillery, super versatile
The key is, I would hope, having sophisticated anti-drone detection and destruction capabilities. The bofors 40 is legendary, but the CV90 has compromised ready rounds compared to a 35mm. That’s what I’m most concerned about now; not killing enemy IFVs but rather UAVs.
CV-90 is the only one that I think can be useful in hard winter climate since it's the one built for it from the beginning, it's build to handle lots of snow, swamps and rough terrain.
How often would the US military be fighting in such terrain though?
@@TheStargatefan1000 That depends on 1: How many more wars they are going to dip their nose in. 2: Where they are going to do it next...
@@TheStargatefan1000 when they annex Canada
@@TheStargatefan1000 well most places that is not the middle east can have snow swaps forests and sush terrain
@@TheStargatefan1000 In China you meet rough terrain.
"there is a concern about too many troops in one vehicle"
Meanwhile, every APC, MRAP, or PMV in service....
Whoever made that comment better have gotten a room full of eye rolls!
@@beerthug Not really. Its been a perpetual debate since the 40s and the first APCs.
Some (bean counters and the "Infantry-centric") want to stuff as many bodies in each vehicle as possible, while those who are more mechanized oriented want more tracks and guns vs. dismounts. Largely its been the later that have won.
The CV90 platform design has continuously evolved in steps from Mk0 to current MkIV with advances in technology and in response to changing battlefield requirements. The Swedish version of the main infantry fighting vehicle is fitted with a turret from Bofors that is equipped with a 40 mm Bofors autocannon, in combination with the 40mm Bofors 3P rounds.
Yes I love the 3P and also with airburst.
I've got the impression the 35 mm canon makes more sense though and you can use SPIKE LR vs tanks.
Does the others have any "stealth" features like the CV 90 ADAPTIV?
The Korean looks large. One supposed feature of the CV90 is the size and that it can go into a standard freight train whatever thingy.
CV90 is best pound for pound
@ Check out the Bofors 3P marketing video to see what programmable 40mm rounds can do.
ruclips.net/video/wewaCdSW4yc/видео.html
Major General Coffman hit the nail on the head when he said they need to stick with a carefully devised set of requirements and stop continually changing their minds. When I was on active duty developing space systems, I got a reputation as a real SOB from the operational community for refusing to let them keep changing the original acquisition requirements. However, the systems I managed were delivered on time and on budget, and worked the way they were supposed to. Allowing a continual moving of the development goalposts is why Pentagon developments are so ungodly expensive and often get cancelled for long delays and failed performance.
The CV90 should be the winner here. The suspension upgrades are incredible and the space for the dismounts is excellent. I’ve only reviewed armored vehicles for 30 years so….
Kurganets-25 superior to all these units
@@AB-ng7go Kurganets-25 is Potemkin village like everything new from Russia, BMP in a new coat. You are not even technologically advanced enough to build your own termovisions...
@@K3mr0n no i think you're describing the U.S. material. U.S. not advanced enough to build its own that's why almost every component in all of its units comes from another country, like the M777 built in Britain and the Abrams tank barrel (and most other components) built in Germany. By the way, how come U.S. still uses Russian rocket engines to go to space? U.S. is not advanced enough to build its own rocket engines, but Russia is? HAHAHA #owned
@@AB-ng7go are you kidding me. Only the Atlas rocket uses them, SpaceX, Blue Origin uses their own. Also USA engine in ULAs Delta rockets. M777 is made by BAE Systems which has factories all over the USA. Abrams tanks have all parts licenced in the USA. You have always been a peasants, go back to your steps
@@K3mr0n HAHAHA nice face saving cover. Not a single American unit has domestically produced parts. Every single u.s. tank and vehicle uses primarily main components from other countries. U.S. literally cannot bring astronauts to space without Russia, begging them not only for Russian engines but begging them for rides to the space station. THe U.S. is at least 30-40 years behind in technology behind Russia...an EMBARRASSMENT...the world's laughing stock.... first object in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first animal in space, first object on moon, first object on venus, first object on mars....Russia has every world's first and dominated the U.S. for 70 years and still going...you are so weak. The Kurganets is superior to anything the U.S. is capable of producing. The laughable Bradley with its 15mm gun LMFAOOOO. One single Kurganets is estimated to be able to destroy about 5-7 Bradleys on its own according to experts, but personally I'd say it's more like 10-12 based on my calculations
Cappy has come a long way with these videos. He would stutter and look timid in earlier videos, but now he’s an absolute Chad. Your testosterone levels must be off the charts, Chris.
I take t supplements to keep my soy levels low
@@Taskandpurpose Honestly you always had balls and people around you knew, it just took you a while to realize that yourself!
I think it's pretty obvious why the Army is finally getting serious about next-gen systems: Its posture is switching from COIN back to near-peer. It's hard to justify a new IFV or rifle when you're dominating the opponents you're fighting with what you already have. But when you are thinking about the next Great Power War, being on the cutting edge matters.
Developing systems that are based across several thousand units is not easy and requires decades of development.
And normally when the ideas first start at the design phase they have to factor in future development technologies.
No other world power is at that level only Israel is developing systems of that advanced nature but they are doing it in a very limited sector and not through a super power scale military.
Go with the CV90! They are awesome vehicles that can drive through almost any terrain, over 1 meter deep snow in the forest? No problem the CV90 can handle it. The Norwegians picked it for a reason, the bradley had to be air lifted to the test ground as not to get stuck during selection trials…the CV90 drove to the test site through dense forest and deep snow. The CV90 has proven itself in the desserts/mountains of Afghanistan also. Slap that grumman 50 mm auto cannon on it and call it a day, no need to waste more time.
Im pretty confident the Lynx can do better. Yes, i am a biased German.
CV90 with 50mm is the safest option but... on the other hand lynx looks soo sexy tho
The puma is the best in the world, to expensive however, and germany works differently than the us.
What did they use to airlift the Brad?
@@magnagermania9311 The Puma can only carry 6, that's why the Lynx is offered instead.
I've seen the Norwegian one in action. It's a beast. Seen the inside never sat in it but it was better than the Bradley. It just seems everyone is forgetting where are the dismounts going to store gear? The biggest downfall of the Bradley was space. Ammo in the floor... cool, except each Grint had 80lbs of gear ..... on the floor in front of them.
What norwegian one? The CV90 is swedish 👍
@@perkristoffersson4153 Might've seen one specifically from the norwegian army, as they own over a hundred of the CV90 MkIIIb variant.
IDK about the newcomer, but all are very solid options with the exception of the General Dynamic's using Ajax although other than the vibration issue, it isn't bad. Also the Redback is a substantial improvement over the original K21. Hanwha's Redback is already being considered against the Lynx in Australia. Keep in mind that while the Redback is larger, the Lynx is far more cramped for dismounts. Both are very comparable. CV90 is also an excellent IFV. You really can't go wrong with either of these 3 options.
Wrong the Lynx is a much larger vehicle and the Redback is made to carry 9 dismounts instead of 8 but history crew areas are smaller for Asian manufacturers.
Japan submarine for Australia for example had to be enlarged to suit the Australian crew even though it wasn’t picked.
Interestingly enough Australian soldiers have reportedly said that they prefer the AS21 Redback (The RedBack is an Australian spider) over the Lynx for the Land 400 project. The AS21 was specifically created for the Australian Land 400 which is why it was named the RedBack (Australians have an affinity with this deadly spider). It's going to be down to the tech and protection both of which the average citizen is not going to see.
Having worked for L3 in aerospace, I’d say the military would be wise to avoid that one. Overpromise, underdeliver, and charge way too much is the L3 way
Isn't that most companies?
Thats the business model. I guarantee you that by 2028 neither this vehicle, nor the debate about its selection will look anything like it does today. If history is a teacher I expect we will hear in 2028 that the Bradley follow-on troop carrier is being tested and should be the field by 2040.
When they aren't busy with the military the aerospace companies have a side job soaking NASA out of billions. The difference is that they sell the military a tank one time, and wait for it to be destroyed or worn out to sell another. They sell a rocket for billions of dollars, use it once and throw it away. Its like throwing away a fighter after one mission.
Can you guys talk about the ERCA howitzer program and the mobile howitzer shoot-off competition?
The Russians: "Aha, smarty boy, we will operate the vehicles remotely, but with officers standing behind operators with a pistol to their heads. Hahahaa."
Don't forget the threat of having everyone they love hauled off to a Siberian Gulag 😂.
Russian Udar, or Vihr as Cappy called it, does NOT carry passengers. It has UAVs or a smaller RCV in the back.
Maybe the Americans are crazy enough to have a drone operator drive humans in to the battle - Russians are not.
We’ll do the same but we’ll have a snowflake lawyer behind the operator.
I would pick Lynx purely based on looks. That thingy look OH SO AMAAAAZING!
Just like with Sig with the m9 replacement and the possible M4 replacement, would it make sense to have Oskosh have the contract since they have the Humvee replacement already? Easy parts manufacturing and dual contract compatibility go a long way, especially when dealing with possible Eastern threats.
Oshkosh Redback 2:05
Rheinmetall Lynx 2:51
BAE CV90 4:55
General Dynamics Griffin III 6:02
Point Blank 6:29
As an ex-mortarman, the CV-90 size turret ring can accommodate the twin barrel 120mm mortar system. This devastating, as well as crew protected design sold me on the CV90yrs ago. Exposed troops has become such a non-reason due to current technological standards, that any fellas that don't have a good reason to have cover, has come down to pure negligence these days. Particularly when one's under the threat of counter battery fire, time is just something you no longer have! There are some really good choices these days, that I could see the final pick coming down to something of a simple reason as being the ability not to do it's initial task, but an additional ability that the others don't. I.E. better ATGM's, additional armour, passive or hard-kill protection systems, who knows what else, that's just some of the armament things not to mention weight, cost, availability, the list goes on and on. Glad I live in Canada, lol...
CV-90 is a 35yr old platform, it has a flat bottom that has to be reengineered and redesigned to make it mine resistant bottom, the electronics though are top notch, BAE, has taking what they have learned with the M2A4 and M7A4, and stuffed that into the CV90 Mk IV IFV (NGCV). The likely winner will be the new development Lynx or Griffin that is not based on the AJAX, rather it like the AJAX is based on the GDELS ASCOD II. The AJAX is a troubled program, it's issues can be attributed to the GDELS Santa Barbara Spanish Factories, their work and QC on the AJAX hulls is subpar, unlike the work they performed for the Spanish Army's Pizarro VCI and the Austrians ULAN AFV, which have had no exemplary performance, which demonstrates the vehicle platform's functionality. Fair to say the Brits, went cheap, like they have been doing on most defense matters, to save money the MOD chose to source the hulls for the AJAX from Spain, instead if setting up a production line in Wales. The Spanish made hulls are of inconsistent lengths, and had non-parallel sides, which means the vibration problems do not manifest in a uniform manner making it exceedingly difficult to isolate, this fundamental flaw in quality inconsistencies can be blamed on both the MoD for not having QC inspections at the plant and for GDELS not adhering to inspections of quality control. So far these flaws have in testing produced excessive vibration while moving, damaging electronic systems and preventing the armament from stabilising. Overall this looks like another Nimrod MRA4.
@@johnmartin6420 CV90 Is an older platform that's true, but does have some advantages the others don't. I have no problem with the Lynx, as long as it has an anti-tank missile system, such as a spike launcher or such. All I will say is that the Griffin looks suspiciously like the Ajax without all the fluff added onto it. So, I'll stick with the CV90, or Lynx. Either one should be adequate to get the job done. Again though, I have to admit my bias as the CV90's mortar attachment ability would be quite an improvement over the open top LAV type launcher! js
@@beerthug The Brit AJAX, as I said is a National Development of the ASCOD II, the same as the GRIFFIN Family is a development of the ASCOD II, the difference is that it's running gear, suspension and hulls are made in the USA with steel from Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI). The Brits went, cheap and are reaping that effort, the Griffin ll MPF prototype has experienced no issues, it's performance so far is flawless, to the point that if the Army selects it over the BAE M8, the Griffin lll will be in the pole position to win the (NGCV).
@@johnmartin6420 Hey if it works out for the best then so be it. I'm no expert in mechanical engineering, just a soldier who started off in a mechanized infantry brigade, and then decided that getting over my fear of heights would be to switch my green beret for a maroon one(didn't work). Former Canadian Armed Forces, hence the beret colour difference. I'm just an older fella who basis a lot of his opinions on what he sees on RUclips. One thing I will never overlook though, is any piece of kit and it's ability/reputation in live theatre. If something's proven and it works, That will go along way in my book, compared to something that I'm told 'will' be the next greatest, sinced sliced bread. Hope all works out for the men who have to be deployed in the next-gen of IFV's.....p.s The 40ton calvary scout vehicle for the Brits, admittedly put an instant bias towards it for me, especially compared to their speed demons of the past! Speaking of speed and reconnaissance, why have the other NATO airborne troops been so hesitant to adopt the Bundesweir's lightweight, two man, tracked vehicles that are last I heard, either armed with the TOW launcher, or I believe the 25mm bushmaster with AP and Frag rds? Any insight on this?
Theoretically, if the Lynx is extremely modular, could t they arm it with the same weaponry?
Rheinmetal has the best papers. With their Boxer they have already a vehicle that can be modified for specific missions, in the field in 20 or 30 min. That's a gamechanger
You have remote for after the troop dismount. You let the squad man the vehicle while they are in it, then pass control of the vehicle to a remote pilot/gunner afterwards. This also allows for the contingency that the remote control has been jammed (all too likely ).
Doesn't that kinda mean that you can potentially be down 3 people without warning? I also imagine that the enemy might not be very cooperative with the timing of jamming.
My favorite is the AS21 Redback, RHIENMETAL with the lynx and they pulled a rabbit outta the hat with the dedicated recovery/support vehicle though.
I served in the old Bradley Cav Scout version in the first Gulf War. Some of the upgrades taxed the Bradley's electrical supply. I hope the new vehicle can sit a full squad in reasonable comfort with better weapons and armor than the old Bradley. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the old Bradley as I served in them for nearly 11 years.
Honestly, the CV-90 Mk IV, Lynx KF-41, and AS-21 Redback are very capable vehicles (I don't have such faith on the Griffin III with current debacle on the Ajax and it's doesn't have the capacity for the 3 + 8 configuration).
I am very excited for a new IFV for our armed forces. Bradley always sounded like a big compromise. Hope they do tons of testing with the actual soldiers who operate these and incorporate feedback. We need procurement in the army that serves the soldier’s needs first and foremost.
Very cool, thanks for a great video as always crappy!!
@Robert Sears
That’s the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. That’s like saying a Chevrolet from the 60s is better then a Porsche 918spyder today.
The Rheinmetal vehicle would be amazing. The Australian army is the second biggest user of the Rheinmetal Boxer armoured fighting vehicle and the Germans clearly know how to build amazing vehicles.
If those vibration problems don’t get fixed, the Ajax bid will probably get disqualified the moment troops step foot inside.
We should just use Sherman M4s.
We're come along way from the days when the M2 Bradley was doing test runs near the San Jose, CA airport in 1979. Thanks for the update.
Man I enjoy your videos!!! My like is between the Lynx and the CV-90. I just wished we had this 50 years ago.
You mentioned favouring Softkill APS over Hardkill APS because of it deflecting incoming projectiles.
However I think youre missing an important point there, which is that deflected doesn't mean deactivated. They will still explode somewhere nearby.
Not to mention that you cant jam or dazzle something like a BILL-2, Khrizantema or Spike-LR. Basicly anything that is operator guided on a wire or a dumb fire rocket like the RPG-7 can only be defended against effectively with hardkill system.
these are great points! I might do a video focused entirely on a deep dive on active protection systems
If Rhinmetals submission is modular, it's in the bag. Big Army loves modular 😉
The Rheinmetal entrant would be the best by far. The Australian army put out their own submission to replace the ASLAV armoured fighting vehicle and went with the Rheinmetal Boxer making Australia currently the second biggest user of the vehicle until the UK order is fulfilled where we’ll be the third biggest.
And it’s fully modular and an amazing piece of kit.
Also as I read heared that the Griffon/Ajax is the best armored I rised my eye brow the puma/lynx (lynx is just a stretched out puma) because of its modular armor packs the basic armor isn't so strong but put on the highly advanced armor on and a rpg 7 cann only scratch the armor (10mm penetration) and since it is top secret how much punishment the armor cann withstand we have to assume that it is around MBT levels
Makes sence, its great to have regarding the rapid technological improvements.
Just a quick comment, at the moment, I am recovering from a Grand Mal Stroke.(I lived) I watch your stuff constantly, to try and improve my ability to focus. Great job. Thanks!
glad to hear you're recovering and alive ! Hang in there , be well ! from all of us here at T&P
👊I DIG DIG YOUR CHANNEL. BRO. U LOOK AND BREAK EVERYTHING DOWN. U ARE THE MAN. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK👊
Now I know why I'm having issues getting that nVidia RTX 3080Ti.
Your presentations are always, funny, interesting and informative. Thank you for all the work you do.
Ever since I heard about the Puma I've been waiting to see a Red vs Blue reference. Flawless.
One thing that was not noted here: there are tertiary advantages to not having soldiers inside a vehicle besides not risking crew; perhaps the biggest among them is that you have vehicles that, in mission critical situations, can be sacrificed to keep other vehicles going/alive -- if one vehicle is severely damaged without repair being available, you have enough room to move any potential injured back to base without leaving anyone behind; if you need to send a vehicle on a high-risk mission with no other options, you have a candidate without having to risk any lives; if you need to cannibalize parts because supply lines are overrun or decimated (say, near-peer adversary scenario, or maybe you're just stuck in the desert), then you have a vehicle to do that. It opens up dozens of options and tactics that would otherwise be untenable without having to have a person sacrifice themselves.
With the vehicle being remote controlled it can carry far heavier armor that means RPG would not be as effective at taking out the control system. Whole new city based tank systems could be created.
There is a 100% chance that the "optionally manned" feature gets nixed at the brigade level when dudes start using them to run over mines and IEDs instead of waiting for EOD.
CV90, hands down. Spike, 40 mm Bofors, ADAPTIVE, Barracuda camouflage, mobility above and beyond, ACM, programmable ammo, etc etc. Comes in IFV, command vehicle, Armadillo APC, Thor automatic mortar, even a tank killer with 120 mm cannon.
Thor is manual mortar isn't it?
Then again maybe the Americans could convince them to go AMOS.
@ Too many technical issues for a fully automatic (breech loaded) mortar to make it cheap and effective.
So Sweden went with a scaled back version that is much simpler, and works.
LYNX!!
The L. has the best mobility and
there are versions with the latest AT-rockets, aktive protection and even a real 120 mm cannon (stabilized).
They should look at Australia's LAND 400 phase 2 program that's in its final year of trials. Both CV90 and Ajax variant lost out to the Lynx and Redback to go to the trial and eval phase. Both Lynx and Redback each have their own pros and cons. If Redback wins then it's definitely better as Rheinmettal already was awarded the phase 3 contract for its APC variant of the Lynx and has parts commonality with the IFV variant.
Fingers crossed the Aus government chooses the best platform from the diggers perspective instead making backroom deals for inferior equipment eg. MRH90 and ARH Tigers are being withdrawn from service early to midlife to be replaced with Apache and Blackhawk.
The GDELS AJAX seems to need major overhaul to have any chance. It is an overweight version of the Austrian-Spanish IFV ASCOD, however the vehicle weight was increased from 30,000Kgs to 42,000Kgs and this had it's toll on the suspension. The CV90 is a very good and tested IFV, but is an old design. The LYNX and the Korean REDBACK are competing head to head in Australia for the new IFV there, so I think one of these two could be a a Bradley replacement. The LYNX has some very advanced options, but German vehicles are usually very expensive. The 9 seat arrangement, most certainly can be adapted on the other 8 seater vehicles as well. The Korean IFV proposal, almost certainly will be cheaper than the LYNX, with similar electronics while many of it's systems were developed in Israel.
The active protection system shown is the Israeli Iron Fist, by Rafael. The advantage of this system is that it can also throw off balance APFSDS projectiles reducing their effectiveness. The major disadvantage is that it only has two shots per side of the vehicle before requiring reloading. An alternative active protection system is the also Israeli Trophy by Elbit Systems. Apparently this system has reloadable exploding plates firing shrapnel towards the incoming RPG or ATGW, kind of like a Claymore Mine. The advantage of the system is it's fast automatic reload capability and the disadvantage is that it cannot deal with APFSDS projectiles. One thing worth noting is that both the LYNX and the REDBACK have rubber tracks, a technology that reduces noise, vibration and maintenance requirements. There are also kits available to temporarily repair battle damage to a track until it is replaced. It will be very interesting to see how both the Australian and the US competitions, regarding the new IFV selection, go.
thanks for the good info! but its sad what's happening in Australia right now
@@coni7392 What's happening in Australia?
@@InimicusXII The Koalas are threatening to start a war. They saw that the Emu's were quite sucessful during their campaign.
@@zoom5024 Well hopefully Australia mobilizes more than 3 soldiers and a Machine gun this time.
REDBACK - is too big
CV90 - is now , an old design , Bradley was introduced 1981 , CV90 1992 ... but US military need FUTURE IFV
LYNX - best of them , but most expensive
AJAX - crap all the way
Startup - nobody cares
1. US Army will chose one of two REDBACK or LYNX , I would put my money on REDBACK as US are "closer" to Korea , and cheaper , and Democratic government 1. want to save cash on army , 2 . go against China , and Korea is closer to action , 3. US , Germany relation are not great .
2. CV90 , is old design is only 12 years younger that Bradley , so there is no point to introduce such old technology , and after all CV90 was designed for Swedish army to defend Sweden , not for invading other countries as US do , it can make it when bunch of taliban cave pedophiles shot at it with RPG , but wont work against more serious opponent .
3. Ajax ... why this crap is taken seriously ?
4. Startup ... is just joke right ?
Oh god, not AJAX, with the amount of money we've spent on that we could have built a 3rd QE-class carrier. The main problem was that the crew headsets were picking up and amplifying the vibrations pumping them straight into the crew's eardrums. It really is time for the British Army to get its arse in gear and get as good in procurement as the RN and RAF have been in recent years.
Oh shit the headsets AREN’T meant to do that??
Why not just get another IFV from another country. So many good ones to choose from today.
@@whiskeytango1744 I don't know why we don't have the CV90 when you consider BAE is a UK company.
AJAX was basically an EU job creation scheme for Spain.
Bae got bought by the germans in 2019.
If the military is looking to add remotely operated weapons platforms, the initial systems shouldn’t be troop carriers, and instead utilize the advantages at come with a remotely operated vehicle and allow for smaller, faster and more mobile platforms.
Its going for an optionally remote system, not an entirely remote one.
I think optionally remote systems are good though. Imagine there being issues with an IFV on the field. You just drive up another IFV to the squad and your litterally set.
Logistics vehicles are already going optionally autonomous, especially after Iraq.
absolutely right!
Speaking of remote capability they might want to include air plane EW equipment to jam the enemies remote vehicles and a few items that mess with their situational awareness systems. 😉 one other thing to think of is the Air Force is going for drone wingman aircraft maybe a drone or some drones as 50mm armed flankers would help with reconnaissance and enhanced firepower from additional vantage points.
@@tbthedozer yeah, I would think a ground based remote wingman concept would be the logical first choice, if only because you want to insure that gunfire support isn’t fully disabled due to area wide jamming, and the closer a control station is to a drone vehicle, the harder it would be to jam it.
I could see a larger armored command vehicle containing not only field commanders, but 2-4 drone vehicle operators, that operated the remote armored vehicles to provide direct fire support. This would allow the command vehicle to be larger, and more heavily armored, but by having it following a ways behind the troops, and their direct fire support drones, they would be harder to take out.
Although the best case, would be to have a smaller, portable control unit available within an infantry platoon and/or company, so they could control units from the front line as well, especially if the command unit is disabled or has issues (maybe even a have the front line controls have a means of directly connection, such as a reinforced fiber optic cable,so even if a battlefield is jammed to death, the drone units could still support their infantry units.
Gotta love the wall lockers there in your room, Cappy!
The case for having a good tank destroyer is well known and documented. Germany’s World War 2 Stug had no turret, and it could only rotate its gun by slewing the vehicle to the left or right using its tracks. It couldn’t fire on the move. And, it had thinner armour than the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Overall, the Sturmgeschütz III shouldn’t have been the extraordinary success it became; but according to the Tank Museum at Bovington, by the time the War ended, it had destroyed an estimated 30,000 Russian tanks - this was not only more than any other German combat vehicle, but also more than any Allied tank.
The StuG wasn't designed as a TD, it was designed as an assault gun to support infantry. It became a TD because.... you tend to encounter tanks on a battlefield and the general desperation when Germany was forced on the defensive.
StuGs and Jagd things were developed not because they were great, but because they were the cheapest way to get a big gun and sufficient armor into the smallest vehicle.
If Germany had unlimited resources, its very likely the Panzer Corps would have fielded nothing but heavier turreted tanks like Panthers and Tigers. StuGs would have been that weird thing the Artillery guys used with the Infantry.
THe Swedes used to have a turretless "S tank" which looked like it would have been a heck of tank destroyer. Of curse nowadys we have drones, too.
"and it could only rotate its gun by slewing the vehicle to the left or right using its tracks" Uhh, are you sure about this?
@@anonymoususer3561 It had a tiny arc it could adjust left and right, but we're talking -10/10 degrees. If a target popped up outside of that arc, the whole vehicle had to be turned to lay the gun on target.
It needs firing ports.
Also needs a larger turret.
Heavier armor.
Must fit fewer troops, hold more ammo.
Let’s just make it amphibious while we’re at it.
Have it done Monday. Good talk, I’m off to play 18 holes with the Senator.
I feel like this type of conversation is always ended with a firm pat on the back , finger guns, and a wink.
@@Taskandpurpose lol
Feel like there should be 2 variants like the Bradley a more infantry focused and a more tank focused
@@kousand9917 also need a naval version and while we’re at it add requirements for one to have flip out rotors and be able to head to head duel an Apache in the dark, while asleep.
Boys are boys and tanks are tanks.
Time to reopen the Ruminant Procurement Office.
The Swedish CV90 is an excellent choice of a replacement of the M2 Bradley.
I was hoping Australia would go this way in our selection 😞
Skjöl . I will see myself out
@@4x4ozventures10
I know what upu mean . Did the Australian MoD already make a decision?
I was very Happy with Estonia taking the CV90. Just wish we'd put a larger 90 or 120 mm Tank gun on it.
@@MrHrKaidoOjamaaVKJV yeah it’s between the lynx and the Redback … I think they are still testing but I’m hoping they go with lynx but I’m wary bc if it’s anything like the Puma 🙃
CV90 downside; noise.
Passive APS are decent enough against guided munitions and they might offer a bit more protection for dismounts. However, there are certain other matters to consider. One would be upgraded technology for the seeker heads, e.g. home on jam modes. Another options would be upgraded data bases and decoy resistance, akin to seeker heads in modern IR AA missiles, which supposedly can reject flares as targets and reacquire the plane.
However, the real downside to passive APS systems are unguided munitions. It doesn't matter if it is an RPG or an APFSDS shell, many modern Active APS can engage and defeat those, a passive can't. Which, given the choice, I'd rather have an active system on the vehicle, so that there is a vehicle left for the dismounts to return to.
Soft and hard kill aps. When will people finally learn to properly call it. Do you know how stupid it sounds: passive active protection system. It's a contradiction
Australia is building some Rheinmetall units as scout vehicles with a follow up unit competition between Rheinmentall and Hanwa Redback for troop carriers. These vehicles are being/will be built in Australia. They are replacements for M113 units which have been in service since the Vietnam conflict.12/03/2122
Well done. Good coverage.
It’s B A E systems not “Bay” systems, other than that, you pass muster Cappy. Good job 🇬🇧
I’ll say it out next time haha great point nice catch !
Babe systems 😳
We don't care. We the people are the customers and the customer is always right. If we want to meme on thier corporations name we are going to. If they have a problem with that we'll then that's a a red flag.
Its bae as in bae bae
i still say "Bay" in my head. it's just easier.
The CV90 would improve by widening the chassis just enough to fit a center bench seat in the back, and thereby boost its possible passenger capacity to 12 in exchange for a moderate width increase. Even if they don't want to put that many troops inside a single vehicle, it gives flexibility if one vehicle goes down or if you need extra enablers. It also makes it a viable choice for the Marine Corps, who likes to organize their infantry in larger squads than the Army does.
I also think the CV90 is a good option because they already have a proven diesel-electric hybrid drive, which will be incredibly valuable for a lot of different reasons.
Unfortunately, the Marines got rid of tanks, so I don’t believe that they’d invest in a system such as this. I’d think that the CV90 might be a good choice for them, since they’re trying to stay light and mobile, so who knows?
@@DocMitchell69
They won't be using MBTs but IFVs will be more important than ever to the USMC for that reason, they will be the heaviest armor they have available.
They deliberately made the CV90 smaller so it would be easier to transport, and harder to detect
@@DocMitchell69 Doesn't swim.
That's really the biggest issue. The Marine Corps needs to own the littoral environment, not engage in mechanized combat, to still exist as a branch in 30 years. They can't duplicate army capabilities.
Cappy should do a video about the roles of motorcycles in military context.
don't tempt me I might do a video on that haha. I used to ride motorcycles a couple years ago but I sold it because it got too dangerous for me - too risky. I'll go deploy to Iraq again but I won't ride motorcycles.
@@Taskandpurpose I call them suicycles
Asia citizens : "pathetic"
@@Taskandpurpose lithuanian special forces make motorcycles their whole "thing"
Their role seems to have largely been taken over by ATVs in the 2000s.
The cv90 with the Bofors 40mm auto cannon is ridiculously deadly. Those rounds are nearly unstoppable and it's *fast*
A Swedish officer was asked about how you best use the CV90 and he answered that you put the pedal to the metal and it will outrun anything.
@@niklasloow1995 Storma skiten ur dom!
Dear Cappy: I love your videos. Thanks for your research.
All of these IFVs seem like great choices, however the Griffen III seems like it maybe the worst of the bunch but i dont know much about Point Blank's IFV. I think the Lynx will be chosen as its modularity puts it a step above the others.
The Aussies have just purchased the Redback and have been getting good feedback from the troops as compared to their old M113's.
Remote operability is a must. I think we will see more and more of it in time.
I see very little downside. Remote control doesn't mean it has to be controlled from 10km away. It could be controlled by someone aboard, or sitting on the roof sipping a non-alcoholic cocktail with them cute little umbrellas.
Very good citing CRS reports. I wish more people would. Nitpick: you said in the budget document there is a reference to aCRS report. Actually, you were looking at a CRS report citing another CRS report. Nitpick, esp since you actually cited proper stuff. Well done.
Good video as usual. Informative and a bit of humor. His shirt is sweet also.
Oshkosh made a light tank, Rheinmetall and BAE made a sexy SOB, and General Dynamics will give the US army a reason to keep singing Blood On The Risers and adopt their own to sing while being deafened by the engines XD
Bonus points to you for actually reading the footnotes and putting a Congressional requirement in context!
From working on this platform for a while I think the technology within the vehicle needs to be upgraded massively. I believe that’s the main issue with the Bradley. So many new systems being integrated into a old platform is the main issue with the brad. The old platforms can’t handle all the new tech being fit in there
8:38 Catch up with the Russians lmao good one
the CV90 is CLEARLY the best option here. THe damn thing is already built. And have you seen what they are trying to do with the CV90120? the ability for a vehicle to cloak itself from thermal sights is RIDICULOUS and awesome.
Surprised you didn't mention modularity when talking about the turret swap capability lol!
My thoughts too!
few corrections man, (vids pretty good btw). Lance 2.0 sports Mk30/2 main gun, same as Puma (as name suggests its a 30mm autocannon, good airburst rounds though).
koreans use base form K21 (which AS21 is based of, better gun IMO, being 40mm and all no missile launcher though, PIP will solve that problem though, that + KAPS hard-kill).
Griffin III is ASCOD chassis (spanish/austrian joint project, hence the name btw, companies making it were later bought by GD), not Ajax, that thing itself is also based from ASCOD chassis (see the thing literally everywhere on the net these days), updated 2 model (by updated i mean bigger) and in all fairness that thing is FUGLY although i guess nice way to mod it for i dunno, a light tank, (Griffin II), if it can be modded like that (not 100% sure on that part).
as for APS (not correction or anything, just a opinion) think hard-kill is better despite problems it poses for dismounts, because hard-kills can face larger variety of threats, be it RPG or ATGM. because soft-kill systems might or might not affect the incoming missile (depends on system and missile its facing). israelis did adjust their infantry tactics when working with Merkava 4M (has trophy APS the same one new M1s are fielding) Main battle tanks, so i don't see why US shouldn't follow suit.
outta the 4 platforms though? i think i'd take KF41, good autocannon, pretty "modular" (ugh can't escape that one, can i?) can carry a full rifle squad? perfect. although knowing US national pride might get in the way.
Thanks for the corrections and the added insight! agreed KF41 is my favorite pick so far too. I don't think National pride will factor in since they're working under their US Division "American Rheinmetall" for the bid.
There is only one Choice and that the Cv90- with its diverse model program out class the others!
It's proven, but the US doesn't want something good; it wants something better than good.
@@CharliMorganMusic And thats when they Stuff it up like they did with the F-35 and the Bradley
Excellent report Cappy , many thanks. Procurement can be a corrupt and strange process
One feature no one seems to talk about is IED protection. I saw a design on Future Weapons, a show on the military channel, that had a sloped undercarriage APC rather than a flat bottom that angled the explosion to the sides of vehicle instead of up into the cabin like a flat bottom would. I can’t remember the name of it, but it wasn’t a IFV as much as an APC.
"US trying to catch up with the Russian military" and "30% of the Russian combat power consist of entirely remote controlled autonomous robotic platform". And now in Ukraine we see that 100% of Russian combat power... is potato :D
just keep cooking up Ripsaw then there will be land drones
The 120 mm MBT Gun module is already in development for the Lynx. Design, modularity and connectivity are some of the pros.
Interesting. Is it then to be used in the role of a light fast tank destroyer I guess?
Cv90 have a version with a 120mm canon. But why build a mbt out of an ifv?
Opening "Club Lynx" in Atlanta next week. The name is all down to you Cappy.. come on in and get a free table dance, on the house!
Thx for the rvb scene that made my morning
I like the cannon on the Bae systems design, something about a Girthy muzzle brake that makes it seem like it will get the job done right.
I think they took inspiration from The Germans.
I have to say it though. If I got to make the choice, I would pick the CV90. It is combat proven and is already developed and in-service. The US Army won't need to spend millions in R&D because it's already here.
Still want my 3090 tho, yes BAe, I'm looking at you
The same applies to Lynx. In fact cv90 and Lynx are very similar in that they both are essentially upgraded versions of previous models.
The cost overruns that occur with most military acquisitions can be eliminated by granting each competitor a fixed amount of money for their offering.
Isn’t it Oshkosh, not Oshkash? Either way, cool stuff. Love the videos.
*Nice video !!! Liked and Subscribed*
Knowing the US army, it'll be the Griffin III. If it was my choice however, as a proud Red Team fan, I'd pick the Redback. It has Red in it's name, what more could you want?
the us will never choose something german. too much nationalistic pride is on the decision comittee table
@@zoolkhan the Griffin III is General Dynamics, right?
Did you know that "Redback" is the direct Australian translation of the Russian term "Baba Yaga"? ruclips.net/video/TjDAiq2-xeU/видео.html
The Australian Army is currently assessing contenders for the Land 400 project, which is to supply IFV to the ADF. They started with 4 contenders with the CV90 eliminated because of costs and the Ajax because it was unsuitable. The last 2 standing are the Lynx and Redback. The army is currently conducting risk mitigation with each bid supplying 3 prototypes. Two for field evaluation and one for blast testing.
Most expect the Lynx to win, mainly because the Army selected the Boxer for its reconnaissance vehicle. However, the army has announced it’s purchasing the K9/K10 SP gun system from Hanwha. Only time will tell with the little information coming out from the testing team saying both vehicles are performing very well.
The Hanwha Redback (Oshkosh bid) is not in use with the ROK Army yet, but it might be adopted instead of buying more K21 IFVs (also made by Hanwha). The Redback is currently being considered by the Australian Army for service.
I know right. I think ROK Army would benefit a lot from having both floating and heavy IFV at their disposal.
4:54 it's for when The Squad deploys with their helmets ticking to the side like Night At The Roxbury 🕺🏿🕺🕺🏻🕺🏾🕺🏾🕺🕺🏻🕺🏼🕺🏽
Thank you for that Red vs Blue reference.
I'd love to see an autoloading Spike missile launcher with 8 rounds in line with the 30mm main gun like the 100mm gun/launcher on the BMP3. Also, make sure to have a 7.62 armed RWS. Give it seats for a crew of 3 and 8 passengers.
I am surprised that no Western Defense company has not went with a low pressure cannon arrangement, since the Chinese has done so already. A Western IFV armed with a 105mm low pressure gun firing old HESH rounds, alongside a 30 or 40mm would be very cool. The only source of concern would be that 105mm may be a bit small for the ATGMs needed. The Israeli LAHAT ATGM could be used as it is tandem charge and has 900mm of Penetration, but I would imagine squeezing more penetration out of a missile limited in size would be difficult.
So they'll split squads between 2 vehicles, with each squad using 1½-1⅓ vehicles? Nah, should either do 12 or 6.
@@MPdude237 those vehicles remain fast by having no armor. Thats not what the US wants
@@CharliMorganMusic
Drop the dismount to 2 squads of 12 (2 teams of 6 in each vehicle x4 Vic's, totalling 24 troops instead of 27. The 2 extra seats per vehicle are for guys in HQ squad, like the medic, FOs, RTO, drone operator, and possibly a sniper or mortar team from HHC.
@@CharliMorganMusic The BMP-3 is rated to stop 30mm AP from the front and 14.5mm elsewhere, for an IFV that is good protection. You also have to remember the fact that this is a vehicle that entered service shortly prior to the collapse of the USSR, a newer IFV that came 20-30 years after would certainly have better armor.
Their analysis of Russia massively upgrading their IFVs hasn't aged well...
Can we just appreciate this man’s District 9 t shirt.
It would be better with the pig gun
1:26 Rheinmettal's looks futuristic as fuck
Under the Christmas tree Best Remote ever for Christmas!
Every 11b should experience the pure ecstatic misery of being stuffed in a Stryker for 12 hours as a right of passage
LIGHT IS RIGHT
The Stryker is and always has been garbage. I was Light before Iraq, so we were mostly helicopter borne. They took our birds, gave us Hmmvws, which we used pretty good awesome. Then the MTOE shifted. Stryker was a very good idea in theory, but it destroyed the espirit de corps of the unit and it only exists because of NAFTA. It provided nothing over the purchase of 2 UpArmored Hmmvws. The only system that they could say that they had that wasn’t available to be fitted in a Hmmvw was the Mre heater. I was literally told this by the GD instructor during my unit’s opnet.
@@orion8981 This is the Way!
@@fathead8933 the mre heater in ours didn't work at all, neither did the troop fan. So. Much. Fun.
If we only consider overall aesthetics, CV90 MK IV wins by a landslide.
Nah, Lynx baby
How about both
CV90MkIV - The warfighting IFV new presentation: ruclips.net/video/lUyZIqH2XQE/видео.html
Oh, good idea. That way a single skinny with an RPG can take out the entire squad at once instead of having to reload to pop the second APC.
modern hard kill systems make skinny with a RPG useless...since IDF introduced Trophy in 2011 not a single vehicle fitted with Trophy was hit by a ATGM or RPG even if a skinny shoot nearly from point blank range ...the reason why the US Army and the German Army introduce Trophy on the M1A2 and the Leo2
"Whoops drove off a cliff"!!! TOO FUNNY!!!
Oh good. "Pentagon Wars" was a great movie. Can't wait to see the sequal.