https://defence-blog.com/army/general-dynamics-unveils-its-new-light-tank-concept.html

Looks pretty good, with the CITV where the MIA2's CITV is.

I'd change the M2HB to Low Profile CROWS II though as no TC wants to stick a head out to fire the .50cal, especially with a MPF slated to get in there and fight close.

Perhaps add another M2HB over the barrel also for some TUSK I features.

Interesting how the turret sides are devoid of toolboxes for more armor.

With luck, this 38-ton chassis could host a wide range of AFVs, just like the 20-ton FCS concept. A 155mm or 120mm mortar concept might work.

So we might have a contest between the 23-30 ton BAE M8 AGS revamped with 105mm vs. the 38-ton GDLS 120mm Griffin II...would it be apples to oranges?

It's so cute! But why? Is it air droppable? Does it use half the fuel of an Abrams? And why does the article call it 'extremely groovy'? Buncha hippies writing defense articles nowadays!

It is being billed as a support tank for airborne and light forces.

"The Griffin II is a new combat vehicle to support infantry brigade combat teams — a lightweight vehicle that can be airlifted into battle and maneuver, dispersed if necessary, in close-quarters urban terrain, but with lethal long-range firepower to take out enemy armored vehicles.

According to the current information, the new medium-weight, large-caliber vehicle intends to boost the firepower of airborne and other light infantry units and was designed under for the U.S. Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower program."

The Army has been struggling with this concept since the M551 Sheridan was retired in the mid-'90s. We'll see how it does against the M8 AGS and any other competitors. Personally, I think it is too heavy and has too large of a gun for what it is intended/needed to do.

Someone needs to tell that model maker how the tube and mantlet work...

...and no weathering, pin wash, dust and tracks are pristine painted green....

Must have been an engineers kid that put this one together

its a concept model its not supposed to be dirty
there is no golden rule that says all armor as to be weathered

Kinda reminds me of a Merkava with its layout.

But Gino is right about this being too heavy for its intended role. The old M551 Sheridan was 15 tons, so it was transportable by C-130. This new Griffin being more than twice that weight would require a C-17.

Maybe a new way for Anti-air Defense?

I think 38 tons takes it out of the light category.

I also think that if the U.S. Army wanted a 105mm or 120mm gun in the very light category, they could purchase the 8X8 Centauro II 120mm or the JGSDF Type 16 105mm. Both should be more effective than the 8X8 Stryker 105mm MGS.

Personally, I would accept and buy both as the Griffin IIs would make for an ideal medium tank and the BAE M8 AGS for the light tank. The USMC could really get hyped up with the KC-130 transporting the M8 AGS and the Amphibs transporting more Griffin IIs. Four USMC M1A1s per MEU(SOC) aren't a serious threat compared to these two lighter tanks. JLTVs and ACVs can only do so much compared to a real tank cannon and tank with armor.

First frontal photo of the GDLS Griffin II..

http://defence.az/az/news/140563/general-dynamics-releases-first-photo-of-new-large-caliber-mpf-combat-vehicle

A far cry from the original gray prototype...scroll down.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1462-united-states-military-vehicle-general-guns-gvins-and-gas-turbines/page/57/

I do wonder if the crew can enter from a rear hatch like the gray Griffin II prototype. The photo shows CITV and a turret very similar to the M1A2. I'm surprised that it doesn't have CROWS II or a RWS. Pintle-mounted M2HBs are so old-school.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1462-united-states-military-vehicle-general-guns-gvins-and-gas-turbines/page/82/

The link is a good thread with lots of U.S. Army photos and info in all the pages.

Humm... I am unconvinced. I am unsure of the purpose of the vehicle.
If it is for airborne units it must be C130 transportable. It should be anti-armor, anti-infantry, and a building buster. It will end up in other roles in non-airborne units. At that weight, there will not be enough armor to protect it from 20 mm and larger. Slat armor can work for anti-tank rockets. You could expect enemy armor and IFV's to engage it while in the airborne roll.
I am unsure of what advantage it would have over a tow humvee except for the number of onboard rounds.

I am all for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) Light/Medium Tank and it's high-time that it gets produced. The Stryker 105mm Mobile Gun System has many faults and technical problems.

ERA could aid in MPF protection, as could Active Protection Systems.

HMMWVs lack smoke grenade launchers, APS, jammers, and add-on armor.

While it might not fit in a C-130, a C-17 could carry it. It could at least resist 20mm, 23mm, and possibly 30mm rounds. It's not a heavy Main Battle Tank, but the need for a 105mm or 120mm tank gun would be a godsend. For sure the USMC could benefit as a MEU-SOC only has four M1A1s MBTs. Adding one or two platoons of MPF to the MEU would greatly boost firepower.

If you look at the last link in my above post (page 82), the production Griffin II, *if selected as the winner*, has Boomerang and "Iron Fist" APS in addition to smoke grenades, bolt on armor, ERA mounts, CITV, and chassis cameras. It could benefit from a RWS for the Tank Commander. It even appears to have a little platform over the main gun for the placement of a .50cal M2HB a la TUSK I/II.

It all moves back to becoming a tank. As you add armor and defensive systems the weight goes up. The trick is to make the weight the limiting factor. The C130 is tactical and should be able to carry a light vehicle. The C17 is the midweight workhorse and will be flying nonstop into improved facilities. Not ideal for Airborne units. Think of a BPM 1 at 13 tons and add a Centauro turret. Light and simple.

The C-130J-30 can carry a maximum weight of 44,000lbs, or 22 tons. That's really a very light tank. Even the NGCV unmanned tank is rated at 27 tons, making it too heavy for the C-130J. C-130 NGCV could be a mobile gun system or Hypersonic missile launcher, but not a tank.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/ngcv-image01.jpg|||NGCV

The RCV-Medium, such as the M5 Ripsaw by Textron with 30mm cannon weighs in at a paltry 8,500lbs, so a few Ripsaws could be carried by a C-130 for Airborne.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ripsaw-m5-robotic-combat-vehicle-rcv/

Here is a good photo of the GDLS test prototype vehicle.


https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1253561720003387392/photo/2

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1253561720003387392/photo/3

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1253561720003387392/photo/4

Article is here but doesn't explain much about the Light Tank and I think the GDLS has a 120mm gun, not a 105mm.

https://defence-blog.com/army/general-dynamics-unveils-its-newest-mpf-combat-vehicle.html

Here is a photo of the BAE MPF M8 AGS in its latest configuration...

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1253560966307954688/photo/1