The Czech government sent nine bidders a request to participate in a tender to replace the BMP-2. Apparently, such projects of the Czech industry as the Sakal and Wolfdog BMPs were not considered by the army as a suitable replacement for the BMP-2. The following infantry fighting vehicles were considered as possible replacements and in this regard, their leading manufacturers were invited to participate in the application process for the contract:
1. CV90 by BAE System
2. ASCOD 2 of General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS)
3. PSM's Puma, a joint venture between KMW and Rheinmetall
4. Lynx by Rheinmetall
5. G5 PMMC from German FFG
6. Tulpar from the Turkish company Otokar
7. Kaplan-20 from Turkish FNSS (joint venture between BAE Systems and Nurol Holding)
8. Namer developed by Israeli Ordnance Corps
9. Dardo of Oto Melara
The Italian and Israeli company did not respond to the Czech request, or at least did not respond before the application deadline. It is worth noting that the BMP Dardo and the BMP variant of the Namer platform would lose because of their characteristics that do not meet the bar of modern standards that their competitors have taken. By current standards, the Dardo has inadequate armor and firepower - just a 25mm chain-driven cannon plus the legacy TOW ATGMs - and poorer mobility than other options. In turn, the Namer is too heavy a car with an outdated power unit with insufficient power, but high fuel consumption compared to modern diesel engines. When buying new BMPs, air transportability and compatibility with the existing infrastructure are one of the determining factors, and these are clearly not the advantages that the Namer armored vehicle can boast.
It is also worth noting that at the time of the publication of the request for participation in the competition, a new version of the Namer with an uninhabited tower had not been submitted. At that time, the only available configuration of the Namer Infantry Fighting Vehicle was limited to a few prototypes equipped with the Samson Mk 1 Remote Operated Weapon Module (DUMV). This DUMV is also installed on Czech Pandur II armored vehicles. In this version, the module is armed with a 30-mm Bushmaster II automatic cannon, a machine gun and a launcher with two Spike-LR ATGMs. The use of this DUMV instead of a specialized uninhabited tower has one significant drawback - it does not have proper protection and it can easily be disabled by machine gun fire, since the ammunition supply system and electronics are not protected by armor.
In August, the Israeli army unveiled a new variant of the Namer BMP equipped with an uninhabited turret, which was specially designed for this vehicle. According to the developer, this BMP will have improved characteristics. The tower is not an off-the-shelf solution from Elbit Systems or Rafael, but rather incorporates technologies from many companies that have taken into account the many wishes of the Israeli military. It is equipped with two Elbit System COAPS sighting complexes, the Trophy-MV active protection system from Rafael (a lightweight version of the KAZ of the Merkava tank) and various weapons, including a 30-mm Bushmaster II cannon with a chain drive, a coaxial machine gun, a retractable ATGM launcher and installed in case 60 mm mortar.
Based on the technical specifications of the applicant vehicles, the G5 PMMS (protected mission module carrier) modular armored personnel carrier was excluded before actual testing began. Its disadvantages are the gross weight of 26.5 tons, a low-power 560 hp engine.and limited protection options were too substantial to compensate for the low cost. The "new generation" Kaplan-20 armored vehicle from the Turkish company FNSS had the same problems, which may well be exacerbated by political tensions between the European Union and Turkey, which are currently at a historic low. For the same reason, the Tulpar BMP of the Turkish company Otokar, which, given its weight, armament and level of protection, could become a serious alternative to the proposals of well-known manufacturers, along with the Kaplan-20, was also excluded from the Czech tender.
This meant that only four cars - ASCOD 2, CV9030 (in two variants), Puma and Lynx - remained in the competition. These four vehicles underwent lengthy testing at the Libava military facility in the Czech Republic. These tests lasted six weeks and included fire tests, high-speed driving on roads, cross-country runs, overcoming walls and barriers, overcoming ditches, water obstacles and other types of tests. The first series of static and dynamic fire tests was carried out on targets at distances of 700, 1200 and 1800 meters. But so far, the exact list of tests has not been published. The final test data was collected before the relevant requirements were issued by the Czech Ministry of Defense, which is a rather strange approach.
According to Czech sources, the German BMP Puma won the evaluation tests of the Czech army indirectly. Although not a single official comment was posted during the tests, the Puma machine, according to the Czech website Armadni Noviny. proved its "technological superiority". Exactly what this statement meant is not clear, other than that Puma appears to have outperformed its competitors. As noted by German experts. BMP Puma managed to hit "significantly more" number of targets during firing tests. Apparently, the good level of protection of the Puma is also part of this "superiority", but it is possible that the high power density in combination with the advanced hydropneumatic suspension allowed the Puma armored vehicle to win the competition after running tests (during sea trials conducted by the manufacturer MTU engines, the Puma showed better performance compared to the Leopard 2).
Without going into details about the reasons for the superiority of Puma over other vehicles, the Czech Ministry of Defense has shown interest in buying this particular infantry fighting vehicle, and not in cheaper offers. Puma is the preferred choice, but due to its high cost, a rubber track machine is also considered an option. Given that the other three cars - ASCOD 2, CV90 and Lynx - were introduced with rubber tracks, it is not clear how to deal with the issue, although in theory a lighter version of the Puma with rubber tracks could be developed. The first meeting was held between the German PSM and the Czech state-owned company VOP CZ to discuss the details of a possible purchase of Puma machines. VOP CZ has entered into agreements with all four finalists for a possible deal involving local assembly and manufacturing of parts. In addition to PSM, KMW, Rheinmetall, Hensoldt Optronics, MTU Friedrichshafen, Jenoptik Advanced Systems and Dynamit Nobel Defense also took part in the negotiations. Presumably, PSM has already submitted technical documentation on variants (except for the BMP variant) of the Puma armored vehicle, suitable for the Czech army.
The Czech Ministry of Defense has allocated a budget of 1.916 billion euros for the purchase of 210 new infantry fighting vehicles and other variants based on one chassis, followed by an option for another 100 vehicles. This would be enough to buy 210 Puma BMPs for a declared value of about 7 million euros per unit (according to Czech sources), but in fact only half of the budget is allocated for the purchase of new vehicles. The second half of the budget will be spent on creating infrastructure, organizing material and technical supply and training, that is, the funds will go to the purchase of spare parts and simulators, the creation of training centers and repair shops. At the moment, this means only one thing - Puma is too expensive!
In order to somehow cope with the high cost, various possibilities are being explored. PSM proposes to create a full-fledged production line in the Czech Republic, which would help reduce costs (for example, workers' wages in Germany are on average three times higher than in the Czech Republic) and create jobs, people would pay more taxes to the treasury and this indirectly even more would help keep the cost down. All Puma infantry fighting vehicles for the Czech army can be manufactured in the country, and if desired, even some of the components of the German army's vehicles could be produced here, for example, at present, some cables and sensors for the fire extinguishing system are already being manufactured in the Czech Republic.
Alternatively, you can get financial assistance for the purchase of weapons from the new EU Defense Fund, created this year. The fund with annual payments of up to 5, 5 billion euros can be used to finance research and development, as well as the purchase of weapons. An EU member can ask for support and submit a project, after which the fund can disburse money. According to Czech-language sites, these funds, most likely, can be spent on arming the production of only European companies, and all four applicants just have their headquarters in the European Union (even the American GDELS is registered in Madrid).
Last but not least, there are proposals to buy two different cars at once. Puma could only serve as an infantry fighting vehicle. whereas, according to Czech experts, ASCOD 2 or Lynx could be used as a support vehicle, for example, as an ambulance (MedEvac), command post, reconnaissance vehicle and recovery vehicle. The disadvantage of this approach is the complication of logistics, infrastructure and additional training, which is necessary when operating two types of machines.
In theory, it would be possible to manufacture all the vehicles in Germany, since the initial order of the German army will be executed in 2020, and it is in this year that it is planned to start production of the new Czech BMP. In accordance with the plans of the army, all Czech BMPs should be manufactured by 2024. In this case, the German production lines will not stop and will continue to produce a hypothetical Czech Puma machine, which will have several differences from the German version (for example, local radio stations, a machine gun already in service with the Czech army and other minor differences).
Although the German army has plans to order a second batch of Puma BMPs, there is currently no planned schedule for its production. The German Federal Audit Office has recommended waiting until the machines meet all the original requirements of the operator. And this is still a long way off, for example, it is still necessary to integrate the MELLS Spike-LR launcher and the auxiliary 40-mm TSWA grenade launcher module, for which a contract was recently signed. Until the end of the arrival of the second batch of vehicles to the troops, the outdated Marder model will continue to serve in the German army side by side with the new Puma. Therefore, it is planned to upgrade 200 Marder BMPs with a new night vision system, a third-generation ATTICA thermal imager and a variant of the MELLS launcher for the Spike-LR ATGM.
Do not forget about the fourth contender - the armored vehicle of the CV90 family of the BAE System company, which was nominated for the Czech competition not only as the main BMP, but also as an auxiliary vehicle for operation together with the Puma BMP. As you know, in comparison with other proposals, this machine has a lower payload due to its lower total mass and internal volume, which may be a reason not to consider the CV90 as the desired platform. In addition, there are problems with purchase prices. Although at first this fairly reliable platform was relatively cheap, which contributed to its widespread adoption, with the addition of new technologies, each successive CV90 variant became more and more expensive.
Another aspect not in favor of CV90 is the lower level of localization. BAE Systems, although striving to cooperate with local partners, leaves the production of the case at its enterprises; only the tower and a few components can be manufactured by the factories of the operating country.
It is worth noting that the CV90 is a great car, but its main advantage is not considered to be its superior performance. The fact that it was adopted by different countries demonstrates the adaptability of the design, and the many options indicate the possibility of developing the concept. The CV90 began its path to success at a time when all the main Western armies had already created and adopted their infantry fighting vehicles a decade earlier and, therefore, could not offer new advanced solutions that would seriously compete with the CV90 in the international market. Vehicles offered exclusively for export, such as the Panzer unter minimalem Aufwan (armored vehicle at a minimal cost) created by Krauss-Maffei in the 80s, the TH-495 from Thyssen-Henschel, various main battle tanks from Vickers (Vickers Valiant, Vickers Mk 7) and GIAT (AMX-32 and AMX-40) were out of demand due to potential problems with logistics, training and spare parts availability.
Thanks to military cooperation between some countries-operators of CV90 machines, purchases of this platform became to some extent an avalanche - the choice of one country and the adoption of the CV90 ended up with the machine gaining an advantage in the following tests and the process was repeated.
Following the results of the Schutzenpanzer 2000 program, Switzerland chose the CV90 armored vehicle. Seven more vehicles took part in this competition, three of which - the CV9030, Marder M12 and Warrior 2000 - were tested for six weeks in this alpine country. The Marder M12 was a modernization of the German BMP Marder, in which the KUKA E4 turret was installed on the modified Marder 1A3 chassis. This offering, with a high level of protection and an excellent turret, had the disadvantage of an old, un-modernized hull. A relatively primitive decision for protection - spaced armor steel sheets - led to an increase in mass to 34, 1 ton, and this is too much for the original power unit, because the selected vehicle will need to operate in the same battle formations with the Leopard 2 tank (a key requirement of the Swiss army) … A Marder M12 with a more powerful engine and / or lower weight ceramic armor would be a better option.
The CV90 was received with mixed feelings: some parameters were considered positive, while others looked skeptical. The small size of the hull was considered an advantage, increasing the level of survivability, it is less likely to notice a low projection and get into it. Also, the advantages of the CV9030 platform were considered to be the separation of the fuel from the manned compartment, which was not in other proposals, and the simplified adaptation of the additional booking system. This additional protection consisted of MEXAS ceramic modules up to 70 mm thick (depending on the installation location) and could be installed in a few hours. Last but not least, the undercarriage with seven track rollers (instead of six) is better suited for deep snow.
However, as always, there is a reverse side of the coin. The smaller body means that the machine does not have enough internal volume and has inferior ergonomics compared to the Marder and Warrior variants.
Due to insufficient firepower, the CV9030 tower turned out to be the worst of all proposals. The problem was mainly related to ergonomics and the fire control system, which was not fully digitized at that time. The LMS did not include independent optics for the commander or an additional sight; when working at night, one could count on only one outdated first-generation thermal imager.
The Warrior 2000 armored vehicle performed best in Swiss trials. Its tower, supplied by the American company Delco, was the most advanced tower proposed. It was distinguished not only by the modern sights of the commander and gunner, but also by modern software functions, for example, fully automatic target tracking. The base armor of the hull and turret was made of aluminum, resulting in a gross vehicle weight of 31 tonnes, which is relatively small for this size. To increase the level of protection, additional sheets are bolted on top of the aluminum structure, possibly from ordinary steel. In addition, due to the large size of the Warrior 2000, its ergonomics proved to be the best of all tested machines.
As a new vehicle based to a limited extent on the Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, the Warrior 2000 model suffered from some growing pains that negatively affected the reliability of the vehicle. The manufacturer of the most advanced BMP offered by Switzerland, the British company GKN, informed the Swiss army that all these problems could be corrected, but soon sold its defense units to Alvis. This company owned the developer of the CV90 armored vehicle, Hagglunds, and later became part of BAE Systems. Alvis had no incentive to maintain two different production lines for the BMP market, which ultimately led to the winding down of the Warrior 2000 project.
The Swiss army ordered the CV9030 because it had the best price / performance ratio, not because it was the most efficient machine! The military was not happy with the testing of the original CV9030, so a number of changes were required before the sale to Switzerland to bring it to the CV9030CH standard. The original engine has been replaced by a more powerful 670 hp Scani engine that meets the Euro II emission standard. The body of the vehicle was enlarged: the roof of the troop compartment was raised by 100 mm, and in order to solve some of the problems with ergonomics, the vehicle itself was lengthened by 200 mm. The rear doors have been replaced with a single aft ramp to facilitate entry and exit from the vehicle. Instead of the gunner's sight of the outdated model, a second generation thermal imager was installed. The OMS computer was replaced, and locally produced systems were installed (machine guns, radio stations, smoke grenade installations). Only forty armor kits were purchased, while most of the vehicles remained unprotected from medium-caliber ammunition.
Other improvements were planned, for example, the integration of a separate sighting complex for the commander in order to obtain search and strike characteristics, but they were considered too expensive.
Germany in 2002 also tested an improved version of the Swiss CV9030CH vehicle, which was equipped with a set of hinged armor that covered a large area, as well as an armor plate on the bottom. Germany stopped development of the next generation NGP family of vehicles due to the development of the concept of asymmetric warfare and international peacekeeping operations. NGP was too heavy to be transported by transport aircraft, as its mass varied from 51 tons in the basic configuration to 77 tons when the reservation kit was installed.
Several options were evaluated, but in the end the CV9030 was rejected as the last car tested! The German army considered that the main factors preventing the purchase of the CV90 platform are: poor protection against anti-tank mines; insufficient level of protection, inappropriate for such a large mass; and low potential for chassis upgrades. Since none of the machines met the German requirements, the Neuer Schutzenpanzer project was started, in which some NGP technologies and concepts were used; later it was renamed several times - Panther, Igel and, finally, Puma.
The UK also tested a variant of the CV90 for its Scout Specialist Vehicle (Scout-SV) program, which was part of the British Army's FRES project. For these tests, BAE Systems decided to downsize the CV90 for the Scout-SV project in order to increase the level of protection. According to the manufacturer, this variant of the CV90 met British protection requirements and had a mine protection level "like that of the MBT."But, ultimately, the UK chose to buy several versions of the ASCOD 2 armored vehicle from GDELS, despite the fact that BAE Systems is a local company; large dimensions and large payloads were key factors in favor of ASCOD 2.
Why was the CV90 not selected in all these cases? Perhaps this is due to the fact that its widespread use leads some people to believe that the car is inherently superior to all other options and buying something else means being accused of lies and corruption.
Nevertheless, BAE Systems did not give up, creating several presentations in Czech and English: about the development of the CV90, its advantages and why the Czech army should buy it and not other vehicles.
According to these documents, the fifth generation CV90 has ballistic protection in accordance with STANAG 4569 Level 6 (30-mm BOPS [armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectile] from a distance of 500 meters), and its mine protection corresponds to STANAG 4569 Level 4a / 4b (10 kg of TNT under any point of the machine); this is the highest standardized level of mine and bullet protection to date. Protection systems against cumulative projectiles, for example, RPGs, additional roof protection, as well as active protection are available for the CV9030CZ platform, but were not installed on it during trials in the Czech Republic.
According to the CV90 manufacturer BAE Systems, previous versions of the vehicle provide ballistic protection equivalent to STANAG 4569 Level 5 plus or plus-plus, while the only of the earlier CV90 Mk III variants has mine protection of STANAG 4569 Level 3a / 3b is the expected level of mine protection for a similar vehicle. The same level of mine protection was achieved on the Marder 1A5 BMP and on the Bradley BMP with the BUSK (Bradley Urban Survivability Kit).
The problem, although not directly related to the competition for the Czech BMP, is. that there is no official standardized data for levels of protection "level 5+" and "level 5 ++". It is only confirmed that they meet and exceed the STANAG 4569 Level 5 ballistic protection requirements. Another issue is the varying scope of testing to meet STANAG 4569 and AEP-55 specifications. The very first edition of the STANAG 4569 standard defined protection only against armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (BPS) in order to achieve the fifth level of ballistic protection, and did not define the sixth level. Later versions also define protection against armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles (BOPS). So what do "level 5+" and "level 5 ++" mean? Is this related to the requirements for protection against 25-mm BOPS due to the fact that the updated standard did not exist then? Is this related to the requirement for protection against 30-mm BPS or BPS? What exactly should the 30mm caliber be, BOPS 30x165mm, 30x170mm or 30x173mm? What is the distance and angle of the meeting? The sixth level of the STANAG 4569 standard is simply not mentioned because it did not exist at the time these machines were designed?
One example of a vehicle whose protection level exceeds STANAG 4569 Level 5, but does not reach Level 6, is the Austrian Ulan BMP, an ASCOD variant with MEXAS attachment armor. This vehicle is protected from a 30-mm BOPS of an unknown type, fired from a distance of 1000 meters along a frontal projection of 30 °, that is, from the vehicle axis by 15 ° in each direction. Modern BOPSs 30x173 mm from manufacturers such as Nammo and Rheinmetall can penetrate armor with a thickness of more than 110 mm from a distance of 1000 meters, while the estimated armor penetration from 500 meters will be approximately 120-130 mm of armor steel. A steel plate with a thickness of 29 mm is enough to stop a 30x173 mm BOPS from a distance of 1000 meters and at a meeting angle of 15 ° - the effective plate thickness almost quadruples at this angle. However, STANAG 4569 Level 6 defines protection against BOPS 30x173 mm at a distance of 500 meters and an encounter angle of up to 30 °. Consequently, in this case, a steel sheet with a thickness of about 60-65 mm is required, which is more than twice the thickness of the side armor, which provides protection in accordance with the fifth level of STANAG. According to BAE Systems, the latest Norwegian variant, on which the proposed CV9030CZ is based, features an upgraded reservation system and has the highest level of protection compared to the existing CV90 variants. In the photographs of the fifth generation CV90 armored vehicle, an increase in the thickness of the armor is noticeable, at least in some places.
The production of the new Czech BMP is scheduled for 2020-2025. In response to the latest Russian developments, the Czech military also plans to replace the T-72M4CZ - arguably the most combat-ready version of the T-72 in NATO countries - with a more efficient platform at the same time. According to Czech media, there are only two real candidates: the German Leopard 2 and the Israeli Sabra. At the moment, the production of the American M1A2 Abrams, the South Korean K2 Black Panther and the Japanese Tour 10 continues, but they all have one common drawback - they are too expensive. Abrams consumes too much fuel and spare parts, while long distances to Asian countries will negatively affect the cost of spare parts and crew training. The Italian C1 Ariete, British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc are no longer produced, and they are made in very limited quantities.
In theory, the Leopard 2 tank should be considered as the preferred candidate for the new MBT. The tank is widespread in the world, and many companies offer various kits for its modernization, for example, KMW, Rheinmetall, RUAG and Turkish Aselsan. The Leopard 2 uses many modern technologies and has many unique advantages over the Israeli Sabra and other existing tanks, such as the 55-caliber L55 smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall. Three of the four neighboring countries of the Czech Republic have adopted the Leopard 2 tank, which can be an advantage in terms of logistics.
However, there is one, but a very big problem associated with the acquisition of Leopard 2 tanks. If you buy new tanks, it will be a very expensive purchase. But even buying used tanks and upgrading them to an acceptable configuration, for example, the Leopard 2A4 built in the 80s, will not give a real increase in capabilities compared to the T-72M4Cz - the German platform will cost the Czechs a pretty penny. Therefore, they thought about the previously mentioned EU Defense Fund, which would help to acquire German tanks.
There are only about a hundred tanks left in fair condition on the market, but besides the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland are not averse to buying them. This can lead to a war of bids and, as a result, to higher prices. Alternatively, you could rent Leopard 2 tanks from another European country, but the question is, which one? Neighbors Germany and Poland are building up their tank parks and it is unlikely that they will agree to give the tanks to the Czech army.
Israel was expected to offer a modern Merkava 4 tank, but after studying Czech requirements and assessing the operational situation, it decided to offer only the Sabra tank in its newest version. The Sabra tank is a modernization of the outdated American M60AZ tank; it was also adopted by the Turkish army under the designation M60T Sabra. It should be noted that although the Merkava is only in service with Israel, in the past decades it has been offered to several countries, including Switzerland (previous versions of the Merkava 1 or 2) and Sweden (Merkava 3 in the 90s). Sweden has a very good relationship with Israel, exchanging technology with this country. For example, the Swedish delegation at one time got acquainted in detail with the concept of modular armoring of the Merkava 3 tank, but the tank was never accepted into service, since it could not withstand competition with European and American proposals.
The Sabra is of course a cheaper option compared to the Leopard 2, which is definitely an advantage. However, due to the fact that Israeli companies participated in its development, it may not be possible to use EU money to buy these tanks. Depending on the variant, the Sabra can even outperform the Leopard 2 - at least 80s models without expensive upgrades - in terms of firepower and potential armor protection. It is unlikely that the Sabra will be able to compete with more modern Leopard 2 variants in any important area, be it protection or agility. The upgraded M60 main battle tank is protected by hybrid armor - a combination of passive composite armor and an active protection system - and, if the customer wishes, an Iron Fist active protection complex developed by Israeli Military Industries (IMI). The original cannon has been replaced by a 120-mm smoothbore cannon, the Knight III fire control system developed by Elbit Systems allows you to operate at night, fire on the move and work in shock-search mode. The newest version of the Sabra 3, presumably equipped with armor, which is a modification of the armor modules that are installed on the latest versions of the Merkava series tanks.
The choice of the M60 as a base for upgrading the Sabra is questionable. On the one hand, the M60 tank is widespread and quite cheap - this is good. On the other hand, however, the M60 is arguably one of the worst tanks to upgrade. This is initially a heavy tank, and you need to thank for this thick, but not effective in terms of weight, armor steel. This is one of the tallest tanks and therefore the installation of modern sighting systems and optoelectronic systems will increase its visibility to unacceptable levels. The tank also does not correspond to modern layout solutions, the ammunition load is in the manned compartment and there are no knockout panels. The driving performance of the Sabra tank is worse than that of the Leopard 2 and other modern MBTs due to a weak suspension and a low-power 1000 hp engine, which is really not enough for a tank weighing 60 tons.
Another option being considered by the Czech army is the purchase of a light / medium tank based on an infantry fighting vehicle chassis. Examples of vehicles of this type are well known, for example, the CV90105 and CV90120-T, as well as various variants of light tanks based on the ASCOD platform. According to Rheinmetall, the Lynx could be used as a medium tank. A real example is the Marder-based light / medium tank project proposed by Indonesia. According to some experts, the Puma BMP (or a similar BMP) is suitable for the concept of a medium tank. Its manufacturer claims that a 120mm smoothbore gun can be installed on the Puma platform.
The big problem is that such a light / medium tank is not an equivalent replacement for the T-72M4CZ. None of these vehicles have sufficient frontal projection protection to withstand a hit from a large-caliber BOPS or a tandem ATGM warhead. In addition, the adoption of such a machine will require a revision of the combat training system and military doctrine.
