BAE Systems has submitted its proposal to the US Army to build and test the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle for use by the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT).
The MPF is a new combat vehicle required by the Army to provide the IBCT with a protected platform capable of delivering overwhelming precision firepower combined with the ability to move rapidly in a variety of terrain conditions.
“Our MPF vehicle is the result of more than 30 years of research and development to build a rapidly deployable, light combat vehicle designed specifically to support the light infantry,” said Jim Miller, director of Business Development at BAE Systems’ Combat Vehicles business.
“Our offering integrates the most modern technologies into a non-developmental design based on development, testing, and lessons learned from our portfolio of combat vehicle programs.”
BAE Systems say they have leveraged the US Army’s earlier investment in, and made improvements on, the type-classified M8 Armored Gun System — as well as other previous programs — into a fully integrated MPF system.
“By adding modern technology, BAE Systems developed a low-risk solution that has both a mature design and the latest in innovation. It provides a highly survivable, lethal, mobile, and transportable vehicle system to the IBCT.”
“Our solution is built around the IBCT’s needs and the evolving threats they face,” Miller said.
“It is as deployable as the IBCT’s other equipment and is easily sustained and maintained with assets already organic to the IBCT. Our infantry fights in close terrain, urban areas, and remote locations, so a smaller, lightweight vehicle that still provides superior protection and lethality was essential to the design of our MPF offering.”
[…] post BAE submits proposal for the US Army Mobile Protected Firepower programme appeared first on UK Defence […]
Would this be suitable to give firepower to the planned Strike Brigades?
At the moment they plan to remove the Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments from the current 3 Armoured Brigades, which are due to receive Ajax, and give them to the Strike Brigades, leaving our 2 remaining Armoured Brigades bereft of integral recc elements.
They will then cut Challenger from another regiment to make 4 Armoured Cavalry formations, assigning 2 per Strike Brigade. 2 of these are planned to be “Medium Armour” Regiments, basically using a vehicle which was not procured to pretend to be a Tank or operate in that role.
Heaven forbid if ignorant politicians start thinking they are and use them against an enemy with real firepower.
If they want “Medium Armour” formations then procure the correct vehicle with appropriate firepower and leave the Ajax vehicles to fulfil the role that they were built for.
Just an FYI. The vehicle in this article is AJAX with a cannon. BAE modified it for the US program. It is what we would have got if we did non cancel our AJAX direct fires varient.
No it is not AJAX. They have absolutely no relationship to each other. Ajax is far more heavy by more than a 1/3 the weight of the M8. What BAE is offering is a 21st century upgrade of the M8 Armored Gun System. The M8 AGS is essentially a light tank for airborne troops and fast moving cavalry regiments. Back in the 90s it made it all the way to the fielding and production stage. Then it got cancelled before full rate production could begin. Another example of the bottom falling out of the anti-communist market.
Originally it was built by United Defense. BAE got access to it when they bought up United Defense. The reason for the weight differences is the M8 was always designed and intended to be thrown out of a C-130.
You are thinking about the GD entry to the same contest, Griffon, which is based on the Ajax chassis and is rumored to be aimed at the UK requirement as well as the US.
Hear, hear, Daniele.
Perhaps we should think of fitting this turret to some Boxers or any other 8×8 that the MoD chooses to use as a tank destroyer/direct fire weapon for our strike brigades, to ensure that we have decent firepower. A small vehicle (Land-Rover) size mounted 120mm mortar would be a great edition to the Strike brigades/16 Air Assault/3 Commando Brigade inventory as well.
Fitting this turret to AJAX would be simple, because the vehicle in this article is AJAX.
Ben P, stop repeating your nonsense.
The vehicle in the photo is a BAE CV90 not an Ajax.
I agree with those comments above that the British army needs a variant of the Ajax mounting a low recoil 120mm gun.
It also needs variant of Ajax equipped with a long range anti tank missile system. Man portable Javelin missile system is good but it is not a substitute for a long range system on the modern battlefield.
We have some serious capability omissions in the planned Army2020 which are not being addressed.
Almost they share a ancestry Hägglunds designed it in partnership with Bofors which was owned by United Defense at the time. What the challenge in the original 1990s program was this how to make a vehicle with a meaningful gun be suitable for the Airborne. The US Army wanted it for the 101st and 82nd along with the 2nd Armored Cavalry.
So what they did was they took the original design added a turret and lightweight cannon (first variant had a 105 the new one has a 120) then sheared of any excess material on the side by eliminating the troop compartment. Additional armor protection was to be provided by ERA and other in theater and in this case air depolyable crew installed armor packs.
No this is not a CV90. No relationship whatsoever.
Relationship is in design teams. Recycled ideas engine housing from the CV90, and in the first variant nearly identical fire control. Also a similar though different manufacturers engine to the MK1 CV90.
No not at all. You are incorrect.
You can tell it’s a BAE CV90 as opposed to an Ajax by the raised roof structure at the rear of the vehicle.
Bollox. It has no relationship to the CV90, it’s based on the M8.
Whatever it is. The Strike Brigades need more firepower.
Light Guns in Artillery Regiments. “May” get a wheeled SP gun according to army, who said there was funding for it.
Mix of tracks and wheels, with what direct fire there is in the tracked Ajax Regiments, leaving the infantry who will be mounted on a wheeled MIV.
If they are supposed to be mobile and cover vast distances as CGS says how is this possible with half tracked half wheeled set up?
Whether Ben P is correct on the vehicle or not, he IS correct in that the direct fire variant was cancelled in budget cuts, and these Strike Brigades, which are in reality mechanized Brigades masquerading under a fancy name announced in 2015 SDR, need such a thing to enable the Armoured Cavalry of the RAC to do what they are meant to be doing as part of our armoured brigades.
Ben: You need to let Mr. Saul know that he is correct and your incorrect, please dont remain silent but give him credit due. Thanks. james
They are both wrong. As are you. Now go sit in the corner.
Ron5 you have a .22 caliber intellect in a .357 Magnum world
Doesn’t really matter, I’m on target, everyone else misses. Including you.
Ron
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that no design shares commonalities. Nor do you seem to understand that engineers tend to repeat the same patterns in small parts of their previous work, when they design new equipment.
And you seem to be disregarding the facts.
In this case the fact that this vehicle was entirely designed by US engineers in the former United Defense division of Bae and not by the Swedish engineers in another division of Bae that was formerly Hagglunds.
United Defense owned 1/3 Bofors at the time. By 2000 they bought it out. BAE got into the Swedish defense industry by buying up United Defense which included it’s Swedish holdings.
Bofors and Hägglunds partnered for the design of the first pattern CV90.
Absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that this vehicle was design by a team of US engineers in the US and NOT by a team of Swedish engineers in Sweden.
You clearly know nothing at all about this vehicle and how it came into being.
So you are of the opinion that companies do not share information between subsidiaries or share engineers.
For example do you think that ANY company designs every piece of a product by themselves? Vehicle companies for example use breaks designed by other companies or sound systems and stereos for that matter. Most computer manufacturers buy others software is another example. If you think the GPS in a Mini Cooper was designed by them. Then then you probably need to go back to school and learn how capitalism and specialization of labor works.
If you think that just because United Defense made the variant for this project they didn’t borrow any ideas from subsidiaries you have not read ANY defense literature. For that matter I doubt you have ever looked at gear designed by companies that have worked with each other in the past side by side.
All you are doing is guessing, guessing, guessing. And you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
You know SFA about this vehicle.
I do.
You have to be the dumbest person this side of TH.
Someone knitted that tank a cozy! How sweet.
Ron5 is quite correct please the rest of you do some AFV recognition homework before deriding his comments, lets stop being petty about this and talk facts.
That’s BA’s modernised M8 tank.
Ron5 is correct. The picture is an upgraded M8 tank that was originally built as a potential replacement to the M551 Sheridan. It actually has more in common with the M113 than any other APC/AFV/IFV. There is no commonality of design with the CV90.
Please look up the history of BAE and when the various companies came under their umbrella. If that had been done, the timeline would not support some of the supposed “facts” being bantered around.