Possible IFV's for PA

[Aamir Hussain]

I was just wondering if we can shed some light on possible PA's requirment for IFV's for Mech Infantry Units in Plains of punjab & Deserts of Sindh, and Armoured Infantry Carriers to be used in Urban or Moutaineous terrain.

To me it seems like the workhorse M113 is fast comming to its end of upgrade cycle and we would very soon need a dedicated IFV to be bought or say developed with turkey.

Furthermore, in low intesnsity conflicts the Stryker Elements have been immensly succesfull in Iraq -- the system is still evolving, however, PA can use a less sophistcated tactical coomand and control system at the battalion level using GPS, GIS & personal radio systems.

It would interesting to debate on this since India's cold start doctrine is a real threat to Southern Pakistan and a counter strategy would require a fast moving blocking and counter thrust force based upon ATGW armed IFV's which can be fielded quickly to delay the enemy advance and give time for both the Pano Aqil based Armoured Div. and the so called independant armoured brigade (more like armoured div.) based in KHI to halt the enemy advance. The M113 is just not the vehicle to do this.

Look forward to your views.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers!

 

[Arsalan]

I was just wondering if we can shed some light on possible PA's requirment for IFV's for Mech Infantry Units in Plains of punjab & Deserts of Sindh, and Armoured Infantry Carriers to be used in Urban or Moutaineous terrain.

To me it seems like the workhorse M113 is fast comming to its end of upgrade cycle and we would very soon need a dedicated IFV to be bought or say developed with turkey.

Furthermore, in low intesnsity conflicts the Stryker Elements have been immensly succesfull in Iraq -- the system is still evolving, however, PA can use a less sophistcated tactical coomand and control system at the battalion level using GPS, GIS & personal radio systems.

It would interesting to debate on this since India's cold start doctrine is a real threat to Southern Pakistan and a counter strategy would require a fast moving blocking and counter thrust force based upon ATGW armed IFV's which can be fielded quickly to delay the enemy advance and give time for both the Pano Aqil based Armoured Div. and the so called independant armoured brigade (more like armoured div.) based in KHI to halt the enemy advance. The M113 is just not the vehicle to do this.

Look forward to your views.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers!

the APC that we have been maunufacturing for quite some time can be well modified for this use! they are not of the heavy weight class category!

regards!

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Get a few basics first. The Stryker is an ICV that is NOT and IFV.

As a nice point of clarification and ICV is a taxi cab for the battle field. It is not something that runs up on an objective and unloads the mech inf on site That is an IFV.

I would also suggest you do some reading re the Stryker Brigade structure and see the US are not just running an infantry taxi by itself.

There are other wheeled ICVs about besides the Stryker.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Many thanks for the clarification and pointing out the diffrence in IFV's & ICV's.

I stand corrected!!!

Comming back to my initial point, Do you think that in the future war with India the M113 would be good enough for our MIB's.

Furthermore, in the Urban Warfare and low intensity conflicts that PA is facing and can face in future -- M113 woul be good enough a vehicle to meet the mission prameters of PA?

Once again thanks for the correction.

Cheers

 

[Super Falcon]

but still PA needs very different type of system we r building talha that never means it is end of the world every ifv have different speed weight and etc

 

[Ratus Ratus]

In essence all these are fundamentally ICVs or IMVs
APC Saad
APC Talha
IFV Al-Hamza

The term APC is generic and carries just that a generic terminology for a vehicle style not function.
ICVs and IMVs are battle taxies; carry infantry form point A to point B with a certain amount of protection.
Some have turrets mounting various assortments of weapons, 12.5mm/7.62mm MGs or 40mm Auto Grenade launchers. Others may have Remote Weapon Station. These systems also mount various weapons.
None of these are IFVs.

One significant matter is armour protection on the vehicle.

For Urban Warfare and low intensity conflicts it matters little whether it is an IMV, ICV or IFV. The functional role is not going to be based on vehicle intent but operational use.

Though in these environments, Urban Warfare and low intensity conflicts, one should be looking for a vehicle that is Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, (MRAP) compliant, be that an MRAP Cat I, II or III. The categories depend on size and hence carry capacity, vehicles intent.
The Stryker is not MARP compliant.

Note:
Infantry Mobility Vehicle – IMV
Infantry Carrier Vehicle – ICV
Infantry Fighting Vehicle – IFV.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

THX for the info. it clears up a lot of confusion.

However, against an armoured onslought based upon the Indian 'Cold Start" doctrine with fast moving, deep penetrating thrust by aromured mechanized columns supported by MBT's -- the blocking or delaying force would be a mix of Helo and land based ATGW platforms that can get close to the enemy -- for this I believe the M113 has outlived its usefulness -- than maybe I am over reacting.

Cheers!

 

[Penguin]

To the best of my knowledge the abbreviation ICV stands for Infantry Combat Vehicle. Initially the full abbreviation was MICV: mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle. Early MICVs were the Russian BMP-1, the German Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 and the German Marder. The idea was a vehicle to fight alongside tanks, from which infantry could fight from under cover. Thus the infantry would remain mounted (as opposed to battle-taxi APCs like M113 and MT-LB, which pick up infantry at A and drive them to B to unload them there and provide limited fire support). Hence there were firing ports in the hull sides and sometimes the hull rear, and a stabilized cannon + machine gun armed turret, sometimes even ATGW. Initialy MICVs were all tracked. As far as I know, IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) is essentially the same, though my personal impression is that IFVs tend to be more lightly armed and armored. Possibly because they are developed from (tracked) APCs possibly because they are wheeled.
The practise of fighting while mounted has since been somewhat abanded and/or applied loosely. Mainly because the vehicles were still vulnerable and therefor uparmored. So, in newer vehicle such as CV-90, ASCOD etc there no longer are firing ports for the mounted infantry. Instead, you see more remote weapon stations (which are not new either: e.g. Mowag Tornado). It may well be that the term IFV has simultaneously emerges and begun to replace the term (M)ICV.

See e.g.
Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide (section INFANTRY VEHICLES)
mechanized infantry combat vehicle - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about mechanized infantry combat vehicle

An infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) is a relatively new name for a wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC) serving as a military patrol, reconnaissance or security vehicle. Associated with counter-insurgency mostly.

The term Infantry Carrier Vehicle is specific to the Stryker family of vehicles (a US derivative of the Swis Mowag Piranha) and the Future Combat System Manned Ground Vehicle, indicating the role of one member of these families of vehicles (M1126 and XM1206 respectively).

As for life in the M113 design, see MTVL. The MTVL essentially is a stretched and improved M113 series armoured personnel carrier with a greater internal load capacity, more protection and greater mobility. 2 Crew+10 dismounts. It can be fitted with a oneman stabilized 25mm cannon turret. Egypt fields a version that carries a complete Bradley IFV turret: 3 crew and 6 dismounts.

 

[monitor]

IFVs are similar to armoured personnel carriers (APCs), designed to transport a section or squad of infantry (generally between five and ten men) and their equipment. They are differentiated from APCs - which are purely transport vehicles, armed only for self defence - because they are designed to give direct fire support to the dismounted infantry and so usually have significantly enhanced armament. IFVs also often have improved armour and firing ports (allowing the infantry to fire personal weapons while mounted).

They are typically armed with an autocannon of 20 to 40mm caliber, 7.62mm machine guns and possibly with anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and/or surface-to-air missiles. IFVs are usually tracked, but some wheeled vehicles fall into this category, too. IFVs are generally much less heavily armed and armoured than main battle tanks, but they sometimes carry missiles, such as the NATO TOW missile and Soviet Bastion which offer a significant threat to tanks.

The first mass produced IFV was the West German Schützenpanzer 12-3 which served in the Bundeswehr from 1958 until the early 1980s. The SPz 12-3 mounted a 20 mm autocannon in a small turret and carried a half-squad of five armored infantrymen.

Western powers were surprised when the Soviet Union paraded the first purpose-designed IFV, the BMP-1, in 1967. The BMP possessed a very low profile and was armed with both a 73mm smoothbore gun and an AT-3 Sagger ATGM. Its steeply-sloped front armour offered full protection against NATO's standard .50 calibre machine gun and partial protection against 20 millimetre Oerlikon cannon both in a 60 degree frontal arc, while its 73 mm gun and ATGM were a threat to NATO APCs and even MBTs.

Since then, all major military powers have developed or adopted IFVs. Examples include the German Marder and Puma, the Chinese ZBD-97, the Soviet/Russian BMP-3, the Indian Abhay IFV, the Yugoslavian BVP M-80, the Canadian LAV III, the British Warrior, the American M2 Bradley, the Spanish Pizarro/ASCOD, the Italian Dardo, the South African Ratel, the French AMX-10P, the Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 and the Dutch YPR-765 AIFV.

 

[monitor]

The Oshkosh M-ATV is an MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) armored fighting vehicle developed by the Oshkosh Corporation of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It is designed to provide the same levels of protection as the larger and heavier previous MRAPs but with improved mobility and it is intended as an eventual replacement for the M1114 HMMWV.
The M-ATV utilizes the MTVR chassis and TAK-4 suspension with the Plasan designed armored hull developed for the Northrop Grumman/Oshkosh JLTV.The V-shaped Plasan armored hull offers protection for the occupants from IED attacks while the centrally inflated run-flat tires allow the M-ATV to travel at least 30 miles at 30 mph even if two tires lose pressure. The vehicle can also take a 7.62 mm round to its engine oil/coolant/hydraulic system and continue to drive for at least one kilometer. The Tak-4 suspension is coil sprung and fully independent, and offers 16 inches of travel. The M-ATV's roof mounted turret is capable of mounting weapons such as a M240 machine gun, a Mk 19 grenade launcher or, a BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missile launcher. The roof weapons can be operated either from the turret or remotely inside the cabin. The M-ATV also features modern vehicle safety systems such as Traction control and anti-lock brakes in addition to modern creature comforts such as an HVAC system and power outlets for charging personal portable electronic devices.
cost : $470,000+

 

[monitor]

for mass production under license pakistan can consider M-ATV for its 4x4 requirment simply buy second hand hamvee from usa if pakistan wants to go for a us option.if pakistan wants to get 2000 M-ATV IT will takes only 2000x475000=$950000000 not so expensive i think .

 

[mjnaushad]

 

[Super Falcon]

For me stryker is best suited for pakistan army and for that matter to any armed force in the world right now we are usinf 80s armoure core no matter how many upgrades you makde but it is not going to be calliber of any 2000 era of system i think pakistan should consider Stryker whgich is facst and can fire also 100mm rounds too

 

[fatman17]

I was just wondering if we can shed some light on possible PA's requirment for IFV's for Mech Infantry Units in Plains of punjab & Deserts of Sindh, and Armoured Infantry Carriers to be used in Urban or Moutaineous terrain.

To me it seems like the workhorse M113 is fast comming to its end of upgrade cycle and we would very soon need a dedicated IFV to be bought or say developed with turkey.

Furthermore, in low intesnsity conflicts the Stryker Elements have been immensly succesfull in Iraq -- the system is still evolving, however, PA can use a less sophistcated tactical coomand and control system at the battalion level using GPS, GIS & personal radio systems.

It would interesting to debate on this since India's cold start doctrine is a real threat to Southern Pakistan and a counter strategy would require a fast moving blocking and counter thrust force based upon ATGW armed IFV's which can be fielded quickly to delay the enemy advance and give time for both the Pano Aqil based Armoured Div. and the so called independant armoured brigade (more like armoured div.) based in KHI to halt the enemy advance. The M113 is just not the vehicle to do this.

Look forward to your views.

Thank you in advance.

Cheers!

i think the army has invested heavily on the m-113 apc and its variants, so i dont see any wholesome changes at least in the near future. small batch of IFV for 'evaluation' cld be a possibility.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

For me stryker is best suited for pakistan army and for that matter to any armed force in the world right now we are usinf 80s armoure core no matter how many upgrades you makde but it is not going to be calliber of any 2000 era of system i think pakistan should consider Stryker whgich is facst and can fire also 100mm rounds too

Stryker System is a bit too sophisticated a system for an average Pakistani soldier to comprehend and adopt. I was thinking more in line with an MRAP type of vehicles equipped with urban and semi urban warfare elements. The current family of wheeled vehicles being produced by HIT seem better suited for Police, riot control and Old FC "Chowkidarh" duties than full fledged heavily armed insurgents in semi urban areas.

Equipping our armoured formations with ICV's is altogether a different element to the larger requirment of get the best for PA keeping in view the current scenario of latest Indian doctrine and WoT.

Thanks for the input. Cheers