Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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".
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. I understand that, it's made clear in the article - but at 3'11" you're gonna have to be crouching - and I don't think that 19.5" per dismount is enough width to actually fit guys in - that's similar in size to notoriously cramped economy class airline seats, which aren't going to fit an infantryman, crouching, in combat gear.
  10. If they are using an unchanged T-80UD/T-84 turret, where are the dismounts seated? The turret basket is going to take up most of the space in there, and it seems to be too wide relative to the hull to allow BMP-3 type seating *around* the turret basket. Poor guys in there have to be basically vacuum sealed...
  11. As true as this is, the age is honestly rather cause enough for replacement. The things are slow, maintenance intensive, not particularly stable, and lack some "creature comforts" that have rather proven to be necessary in certain operations (the classic case being no effective AC in desert fighting...). You might be able to get away with a deep overhaul, but likely for the same costs as a newer design. I thought one of the ideas of JLTV was to actually save money in the long run by allowing the vast mishmash of hurriedly-acquired MRAPs to be liquidated in favor of one standard family of machines. Seems a bit like hurting yourself in the future to save money now by keeping all of the different humvee & MRAP configs in use. It's just odd because so many of the other procurement decisions being made seem to focus on this rebuilding-for-the-long-term prioritization and cutting back of interim/stopgap work (such as Bradley/Abrams upgrades getting scaled back in favor of additional NGCV funding, and Chinook F Block II getting axed for a bump in FVL funds)...
  12. The goal of groups like GAO is specifically to be as critical as humanly possible. A hypothetical issue like a poor service life on a tire, while not impeding the function of a vehicle, can have it stated to be "not operationally suitable". The only pieces of equipment that are "fully operationally suitable" have either been through decades of use & refinement... or only exist on powerpoint presentations. Poor training & manuals, even if legit criticisms, are hardly reasons to prevent acquisition of a vehicle. I heavily doubt the GAO would have found the M3 Medium Tank's Training and Manuals operationally suitable as the US was desperately trying to build up an armored force in early WW2.
  13. A) I wonder what vehicles that first engine could be planned for. B) "Battery Type Fuel System" sounds like a fancy high-pressure common rail. Would allow improvements in fuel flow and control to achieve the better performance.
  14. I would be quite frankly astonished if the current Sprut 2S25M had ammo restrictions - autoloaders capable of handling the longer ammo have been around for far longer than the Sprut's development program, and there's no other possible technical reason it couldn't fire any 2A46M compatible ammo (just comparing the 2A75 to the other 2A46M derivatives)... the worst that may happen IMHO is it getting knocked back a bit.
  15. I was referring to that thread, and from the evidence in there the performance seems dismal enough to say it's not working as advertised and certainly no improvement over Kontakt 5 outside of a few hypothetical edge cases.
×
×
  • Create New...