Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TokyoMorose

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey, I guessed right - the absolutely stupid 360 degree protection requirement was what doomed the GCV as well (remember the baseline config was 60 something tons and the system max was 84?). The Puma is as good as you can get protection wise and fitting two on a C-17.
  2. That's just the contract legalese, actual vehicle requirements are tab 2 of attachment 0045, which I have not found.
  3. I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that. You don't end up with a sole offer on a program of that size, unless you are demanding something goofy. Nobody even bothered (sure, the Lynx technically couldn't be shipped in time - but failure to ship in time is something that reeks of the bosses not treating it as a plausible thing) to bid outside of GDLS, and if Breaking Defense is right, GDLS couldn't even actually meet the monstrous spec list.
  4. Thanks for the answer, I was well aware of the use of the KMW chassis on the Mark 7s and the CR2's warmed over CR1 design - I just never really figured out why they totally abandoned the aluminum hull. Wonder if they could have ever solved the wear issue.
  5. The decision to use an aluminum hull is also quite brave, the thing is only 47t despite mounting much of the same mechanical components as CR1/CR2 (and the whole universal turret assembly which was the forebear to the CR2 turret). Considering that it was the NERA modules that provided the real protection, I do wonder why Vickers totally ditched their hull design and opted for others. It is exceedingly unlikely this is carrying 20t less armor than the CR2, so this seems to be mechanically a better hull.
  6. In general, no - but a lot of the detailed ideas still remain extremely wonky, such as purposefully forgoing armor in total reliance for active protection. Even if you build an all-conquering APS, it'll still quickly deplete its loaded bank of shots. There's also a *lot* of as-yet unworkable electronics demanded, and they even considered stuff like exoskeletons. There was also a planning undercurrent behind all of the FCS designs that high-intensity peer conflict was a thing of the past. The general concepts they were working on are indeed workable now, but without your all-conquering APS and literally magic electronics & sensors they aren't nearly as viable - FCS was only viable on paper *because* of the all-conquering APS & absolute omnipresent networking & data fusion along with nearly omnipotent sensor systems. Even the latest sensors and networks are far below what FCS was aiming for. (As an aside, FCS *was* laughably pie-in-the-sky technologically in the context of when it was approved! It'd be like trying to put the current top-line smartphones with everything they have into service in the mid 2000s, sure it's not seen as a big deal now but the Army were really "optimistic" with approving that program...) There's some tested systems I seem to remember seeing that do alright against KE (I forget the names), although none fielded that I know of. The Quick Kill system proposed for FCS was extremely wonky, never fully worked right (although has some real impressive looking test footage!), and to this day still isn't fieldable. And then you get to the issue that the QC VLS cells were in packs of 4-8, and I've only ever seen one or two packs on the FCS vehicle renders. I've also never seen anything resembling a quick reload method for the QC, and so if worst case scenario you have only 4 of them loaded and the enemy takes 5 shots at you with an old T-12 Rapira... then what? Honestly not being able to rapidly reload is a total killer for an APS outside of Low Intensity patrols, and Quick Kill's design doesn't appear to be fast to load and certainly cannot be reloaded under armor.
  7. So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'? Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...
  8. This is going to be a guess here, but I'd say the most likely reason is transmission cooling. The X-1100 is capable of 1500hp with Abrams-level engine bay cooling but the Patton simply doesn't have as much cooling capacity. The engine/transmission powerpack is most likely being limited due to the combined limits of ventilation in the patton hull. That's very true, but the C32 is very different in form to the AVDS as well. The C32 choice just baffles me.
  9. I would argue it was finished, the GDLS brochure linked by Sovngard stated that the pre-production engine fully completed testing and verification, and offered the engine for sale for refit immediately. No mention in the pitch of any future work needed. I'd also argue it's important that L3 has kept the engine listed for sale even after several website total redesigns (in other words, it wasn't just carried over from back when the pitch was first being made) - and given that L3 has the MTU883 license it would make little sense for them to still (barebones, admittedly) market it if unfinished. The 883 is better in every way. I do not doubt the quality of the C32 ACERT, the HP rating chosen isn't even the highest rating so it'll run forever. But I don't recall the Israelis having too many issues with their AVDS-1790-9ARs of a very similar power rating, it seems to be the 1500HP variant detuned to the same 1350HP (which seems to be chosen for a reason perhaps gearing wise, as the C32 ACERT is listed as up to 1800hp in hottest, shortest-use tuning) would have no issues at all.
  10. Real odd choice in engines, IMHO - BAE's spec sheet lists the C32 ACERT. Has no compatibility with anything else in the fleet, and isn't outside of the power range of further-upraded AVDS-1790s. Seems like uprating the 1790 would be far less work.
  11. It really is incredible how much of a mimic of the ATACMS the new missile is (I've heard it rumored as KN-25 under DoD codenames, which has been seen before in texts but nobody has seen a 'KN-25' so this may be it) - they even seem to have aped the M270 launcher design for this and the new heavy MLRS they showed off...
  12. I know I am late here, but the loon wouldn't happen to be Ernst Kniepkamp would it? I know with the half-tracks and Panzer III he was directly the guy responsible for those elements - and the Tiger I work at Henschel was also his pet project of the time. And wait, I have Forcyk's book.... and yep it is Kneipkamp. Head of all tank projects at the Wehrmacht, and had been the chief army engineer even before the Nazi takeover when it was the "Military Automotive Department". Even the tiny Kettenkrad has the interleaved wheels, and yep the patent on that is "E. Kneipkamp".
  13. Oh I agree wholeheartedly. But my question was that since the Leo2PL project is funded separately from the T-72 replacement: If it is cheap enough and there are enough available at the cheap price, it might be worth diverting the 2PL funds to replace the 2A4s *as well* as the old T-series tanks.
  14. While I take the M1A1SA rumor with approximately 500t of salt, if they do get a good price on those and sufficient volume is available... does this not rather take the wind out of the Leo2PL program? It's hard to see how the 2PL would be a better machine overall due to the limited scope of the upgrades on it, and unless the 2PL is *suuuuper* cheap wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on SAs and just consign the ancient 2A4s to training & parts hulk duties?
  15. That... that is impressively pointless. I'd wager by the time you've built the limited run of new hulls you're nearing the total cost/vehicle as the Ajax but while still being limited to ye olde chassis.
×
×
  • Create New...