An FNSS Pars 4x4 Wheeled Armoured Combat Vehicle launches a Kornet-EM ATGM. (Photo: FNSS)
Vital capability or mission creep - why arm your IFVs with missiles?
Most armies have abandoned the concept of specialist “tank hunter” vehicles, but does it really make sense to equip your IFVs or APCs with the capability to engage enemy MBTs instead?
When discussing armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) we often debate whether they should be tracked or wheeled, or fitted with manned or remote-controlled turrets (RCT). But one question is asked less often: do they need the capability to launch antitank guided missiles (ATGMs), even when that is not their primary mission... Continues below
This analysis article originally appeared in August's Decisive Edge Land Warfare Newsletter.
Newsletter Sponsors:
There is a definite trend now to fit infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) with a pod or two of ATGMs to counter threats such as main battle tanks (MBTs) that cannot be neutralised by the IFV’s primary armament. normally a 20 to 40mm cannon.
This comes at a cost, as the necessary advanced sensors and weapons can be very expensive (and heavy), as well as requiring additional crew training. But if you don’t have vehicle-mounted missiles on an IFV or even armoured personnel carrier (APC), where do you fire them from?
In the past many forces had dedicated antitank platforms, such as the British Army’s, FV438, Striker and Ferret, all of which carried the old Swingfire 4,000m-range ATGM. These were deployed by various elements including the Royal Artillery, infantry units and Royal Armoured Corps. but all have been phased out of service...
Today the army uses the Lockheed Martin/Raytheon Javelin ATGM in the dismounted role, but a return to vehicle platforms seems on the cards. For the future the MoD is exploring the Battlegroup Organic Anti-Armour (BGOA) concept which has several elements including a Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) platform. Is this a “tank hunter” rebranded to fit modern norms?
There are several contenders for the actual missile under this requirement, including MBDA’s Brimstone which was originally developed for air-launched applications but is now marketed for land-based missions.
While MBDA would not comment on any putative bid when asked by Shephard, we know that Brimstone has already been used in this role in Ukraine, launched from an unprotected wheeled platform.
There are various potential launch platforms for Brimstone including RBSL’s Boxer 8x8 with a pod on the rear for eight rounds and HMT’s Supacat 6x6 with a similar number of missiles. The Ares variant of the Ajax family of vehicles has also been shown with two pods of Brimstones mounted on the roof.
And nowadays we must consider the uncrewed option: Brimstone has been marketed integrated onto a THeMIS UGV which would have a pod of six.
One argument in favour of these specialist platforms is that fitting an IFV with ATGWs means they could end up hunting MBTs rather than fulfil their main role of transporting infantry and supporting them once deployed.
The US Army clearly prefers this flexibility. It once operated the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle based on a modified M113 chassis but today largely relies on the BAE Systems Bradley M2 IFV for the mobile antitank role. Bradley has a two-person turret armed with an M242 25mm dual-feed Chain Gun plus 7.62mm coaxial machine gun (MG), but on the left side of the turret is a pod of two Raytheon TOW ATGMs which are raised from the travelling position prior to launch.
Many other platforms, meanwhile, can be fitted with a pedestal-mounted TOW launcher, such as the HMMWV. A downside of the bespoke tank hunter is that they cannot be everywhere at once, so distributing this type of weapon across different assets within your force make sense in many scenarios.
TOW has a typical range of 3,700m and was originally fitted with a single high-explosive antitank (HEAT) warhead. This was replaced by a tandem HEAT warhead to neutralise threat platforms fitted with explosive-reactive armour (ERA).
For many years the French Army deployed a version of its VAB 4x4 APC as a dedicated tank destroyer. This used a Mephisto launcher raised from inside the vehicle with four HOT missiles ready to launch. When expended these were reloaded from inside the hull. This is not a luxury available to IFV crews firing missiles from a “bolt-on” turret-mounted launcher. Indeed it is rare to see additional rounds carried other than those already in the pod.
As HOT is long since out of production, France is replacing its dedicated VABs with the 6x6 Jaguar. This has a turret armed with a CTAI 40mm cannon plus roof-mounted RWS armed with a 7.62mm MG. ATGW capability is provided by a pod of two MBDA Akeron missiles which are elevated prior to launch and can be guided to the target from the firing vehicle or another platform.
AIkeron was first deployed by the French Army in the dismounted role and more recently MBDA has developed the Akeron Long Range which will be fitted to France’s upgraded Tiger 3 attack helicopters. This has a range of up to 30km and could also be used from land platforms.
Germany also once operated dedicated tank destroyers, including the Kanonenjagdpanzer armed with a 90mm gun in the front of the hull with limited traverse. Later designs toted HOT launchers, but all were again phased out of service.
To fill the gap the German Army fitted its Marder 1 IFVs with a pintle-mounted MILAN missile which had a maximum range of 2,000m, but production of this weapon was completed some years ago. More recently some Marder 1A5s were equipped to fire EuroSpike Long Range missiles, and these are referred to as the MELLS.
The more modern German Puma IFV has an RCT armed with a 30mm dual-feed cannon plus coaxial MG and a pod of two EuroSpikes on the left side of the turret.
As can be seen, launch platforms need to keep up with development in missile technology. In the past many ATGMs were wire-guided. They could become jammed and were of little use in jungle or bush. Many missiles are now laser-guided with some requiring the operator to keep their sights on the target until the missile impacts (not so easy when inside a vehicle) while others are of the fire-and-forget type.
A good example of a laser-guided ATGW is the South African Denel Dynamics Swift (or ZT-3) which was launched from a dedicated Ratel tank destroyer with a one-person turret with three missiles in ready-to-launch position.
Denel followed this with the Ingwe ATGW, with the first export customer being Malaysia, using a dedicated FNSS AV8 platform. This vehicle’s turret has two missiles on either side with a total of 54 platforms and 216 missiles supplied to Malaysia.
Other advances followed. The increased level of armour protection on MBTs, especially over their frontal arc, led to development of top attack weapons. Even this idea is by no means new - the Bofors (now Saab) Bill was a top attack missile developed some 40 years ago.
Practically any medium to heavy chassis can handle an ATGM launcher. Any additional subsystem adds weight and impacts performance and manoeuvrability but the art of the possible is a broad one so end users have plenty of choice. As previously mentioned, there is always the debate about whether tracked or wheeled is best in a given scenario, and Turkey for example has selected both options for its tank destroyer mission.
The 4x4 platform is FNSS’s Pars Wheeled Armoured Combat Vehicle (WACV) with 76 delivered, while the tracked one is the same company’s Kaplan-10 with 184 delivered.
These have the same Anti-tank Remote Controlled Turret, also designed and manufactured by FNSS with traverse and elevation being all-electric with two-axis stabilisation. It can fire different missile types including the Russian Kornet-E or Turkish Mizrak-O. The sensor pack is in the middle with an ATGM mounted either side and with a 7.62mm MG mounted externally of the right missile.
Indeed, in addition to podded ATGW installations, there are a number of turrets on the market that can be fitted with such missiles depending on the operational requirement.
A good example is the Mogg Reconfigurable Integrated Weapon Platform (RIwP) which is armed with a 30mm Chain Gun and 7.62mm coaxial MG in baseline form.
To meet the potential British Army requirements discussed above, this system has been shown fitted with a pod of four Thales High Velocity Missiles (HVM) for the air defence role on the left and a pod of two Brimstones on the right.
This leverages a system development for the US Army that included Raytheon Stinger surface-to air missiles plus the cannon and MG.
According to Moog’s Richard Allen-Miles, RIwP’s “ability to host direct and indirect fire weapons allows users a genuine multi-role mission capability. This is combined with the ability to allow [them] to change and add effectors and sensors as new threats evolve.”
This, he says, means armed forces can maintain an optional weapons mix against prevailing threats throughout the service lifetime of the host vehicle, and removes the need for repeat procurement cycles each time a new weapon set is required.
The option is there if you want to invest, and sometimes this may be the best choice for providing an antitank capability within an army or battlegroup. But other delivery mechanisms (soldier-portable launchers, attack helicopters, UAS) exist and you may just want to let your IFV be an IFV, maximising its performance and with a crew 100% focussed on the task in hand!
Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.
