Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. ANNA news in Maraat Al-Numan Random photo of PMC
  4. New paint for Al-Khalid tank proposed by Pakistan company INTERMAT SA that capable of decreasing thermal signature.
  5. The US Army did not specify any turret as mandatory, so trying to make any judgement based on the turret fitted to the Griffin III demonstrator is questionable. Specifically given that this turret was not fully functional and included mock-up fittings of several components (like the Iron Fist Light Decoupled hardkill active protection system, which was only attached to the turret because General Dynamics has the licence to produce it for the US market). Furthermore there is the option to have the vehicle commander (or the man who operates the panoramic sight, if one decides to change role names) to be part of the infantry squad. This was a solution proposed for the Puma when it became clear that seven men won't fit into its dismount compartment and I've heard that such a system was proposed/is used by the French with the VBCI. Also the 50 mm autocannon is not mandatory. The mandatory requirement is a 30 mm autocannon, using a 50 mm gun was seen as desired objective (and this wasn't limited to the XM913 specifically, as Rheinmetall's efforts were focused on a 50 mm variant of its homegrown WOTAN chain guns). I've also never heard/read that proving growth potential of the gun was mandatory, more like a bonus to increase attractiveness of the offer. GCV and OMFV had completely different requirements, hence it is silly to pretend armor protection requirement was not changed. Same happened with Future Combat Systems and GCV programs - both programs followed directly on each other, yet requirements were extremely altered between the programs. Or NGP/NeSPz and Puma - original requirement asked for modularity, 8 men dismount squad (95th percentile male), 50 mm gun, ballistic protection against 125/140 mm APFSDS and hardkill active protection system - yet requirements were changed during development just like the name of the program. Assuming that the US Army officials are dumb enough to demand the ability to transport two OMFVs fully armored to GCV levels in a C-17 that could not even transport two of BAE Systems' proposed GCV vehicles with all add-on armor removed is silly. The Griffin III was designed by General Dynamics based on its contact with the US military and their detailed knowledge of the thinking process regarding possible requirements for the OMFV - they did the same with the Griffin I & II demonstrators, which were built (or in case of the Griffin I mangeled together form existing products). A good idea about possible US Army requirements can be seen by looking at the US Army's own concepts created when thinking about how the NGCV/OMFV could look, what was technologically feasible and how it all could come together. Several renderings, drawings and models were made, of which quite a few have found their way onto the web. There also have been designs by DARPA, but they always seem to be rather questionable,. US Army concept with two men crew: Same model updated with a three men crew: Note that side armor is just a new generation of ERA (probably with improved anti-EFP characteristics) and behind that a layer of (ceramic) composite armor (red) for ballistic protection. At the front section of the hull flanks there is only slat armor. I don't think that such an armor layout would meet the GCV's protection requirements and/or warrant a weight north of 40-45 tonnes for an IFV with six men dismount squad. The US Army isn't dumb, they looked at what was feasible with the available technology and made demanding requirements; potentially exceeding the performance showcased in their own tests/analysis a bit to account for industry always working on new generations of technology. The requirement that killed OMFV (or rather: put it back into an earlier stage of conceptioon) is the requirement to transport two of such vehicles in a C-17 without having to remove the applique armor. That isn't even possible with Puma and Puma features tons of weight reduction measures that end up hurting its performance in some ways and are not considered acceptable by US standards (like limiting height of the dismounts to 75th percentile male, using only a 5.56 mm co-axial machine gun or using only a 30 mm gas-operated autocannon).
  6. Maarat al Numan city was taken with little fight. SAA took also several other towns and villages around. Recent map from suriyakmaps. It's notable that the second largest city of the Idlib province fell in just several hours. The only thing which can stop the SAA from further advances is political pressure from the outer powers. Fierce fighting reported also from Aleppo front. SAA is said to be storming Khan Touman and Rashedeen 5.
  7. I don't know where to put this. The yearly parlamentary report about the state of Bundeswehr brings a lot of expected but still dreadful numbers. Click on the tweet to get more info. Original document here: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/679322/afbe4b03e05f1b7b88aa2d657f5d7088/jahresbericht_2019-data.pdf
  8. Algerian Su-30MKA crashed today killing both pilots. The reason is not clear at the moment. Iranian Shahed-129 crash-landed at the Iraqi border. Maybe repairable.
  9. Not letting civilians & the competition see the specs of your products without an actual inquiry/request does not equate to "pulling out" of the market for military-grade engines. The fact that the navigation menu of their website contains the menu item "Defense" should make that quite obvious.They just launched their re-designed website before all new content was created, this is why you'll now can access the maritim defense product specs, which weren't available a few days ago. Their website also offers a filter option for "military vehicles", so more content will arrive soon.
  10. Polish PT-91 in Lotva in december 2018: Human factor + to old and poor quality amunition. Photo is taken in army rebuild plant sevral months after accident.
  11. Reassure me I see the MTU website as cached in Nov 2019 listing the engines in detail and now, nothing, really nothing.. So you know they are not pulling out how?
  12. Yep, I reckon we will never see a PUMA in service anywhere except Germany. Unless.... it is a PUMA not a PUMA by which I mean, an AMERICAN PUMA like an AMERICAN HARRIER is a HARRIER. If you squint, they look the same but aside from the concept, nothing in common. PSM could man up, find a US partner and re-birth PUMA. Big ask - Germany has very aggressive defence tech/data export laws plus it would want to be a brave American Prime - PSM have right royally stuffed up the introduction into service of Puma. As punishment for its part, Rheinmetall just got given 110 mill Euro to upgrade Marder.
  13. Of those three programs only the EFV actually fits what you are trying to describe.
  14. Yeah, I may be wrong, I'll have to dig around and see if I can find the book. With such a small production run, I can see them wearing out fast.
  15. Some "custom" creations found originally here... Not sure if it's enough of a low rider...
  16. Seriously, their obsession with Wundewaffes that get systematically canceled (or totally downscalled in service numbers) is the cause they get stuck with older equipment that is not on par with the latest the potential enemies field. At this point the most rational thing the Army could do in terms of time and money, as a stopgap measure until the Bradley replacement starts fielding in some decades, is modernize the M2 (there are several demonstrators and examples) and replace the turret with an unmanned one with the 50mm. That should free enough space in the vehicle to carry at least 2 more infantrymen. Simmilar to what the brits did with the Warrior and the russians with the BMP-3.
  17. Last week
  18. Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used). You do save on three dismounts, but you're only going to save so much weight there (I.e. comparing to GCV you would need to knock more than 10 tons off, or >20% of total vehicle weight just by removing three dismounts - I remain doubtful that the dismount reduction allows that level of savings). I use the GCV for comparison because it is the closest requirement that matches the OMFV reqs, and because it was designed with essentially the exact same technology/industry base. As to the Puma, as much as I genuinely believe that would have been the most satisfactory solution, the Army disputed CBO's reckoning about the Puma's survivability (they are likely using different matrixes for calculating scores) and it needed more equipment added on to meet specs anyhow (particularly now with the 50mm). Griffin III was never bid, and simply does not have the protection to meet the requirements or GD would have bid it. Honestly, Griffin III is just a tarted up system almost as old as the Bradley (good ole ASCOD). Transformational change is how they got LCS, Zumwalt, and EFV or did they memory hole that?
  19. Not a doc. A new French blog devoted to tracks and steel is borne. https://blablachars.blogspot.com/?m=1 Articles are in French or in English.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...