N-L-M

Congratulations, it's only Monday and you win the prize for "most retarded thing I read on the internet this week"

Millimeters? Metric tons? In Texas?! 

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Yes.

{Sidles up to the bar at a nondescript neo-revivalist saloon, motions you to a quiet table after pretending to meet you}
 
Okay, so I've heard that you're also an engineer from "across the citrus curtain" and are still getting used to life in boots instead of skirts. That's fine, there are more of us than you'd think. But since the locals use some sort of ancient, impenetrable script instead of an actual system of weights and measures, I figure this might help you get your bearings:
 
Protection:
The protection standard against enemy HEAT is fairly laughable, given what we know the Mormonhadeen are packing thanks to the Cascadians. The "6 inch" projectiles being used as a reference hit like ancient panzerfausts and can punch through around 180mm of RHA on the flat. The protection standard against KE is much more up-to-date, and obviously reflects a run-in with (or espionage against) the new Cascadian Norman tank. The "4 inch/54 calibre" gun is actually the 105mm L/51 gun off the Norman. The relevant penetration figures are 263mm RHA at 1800m, and 394mm at 1100. I'd suggest leaving some growth potential in the hull and suspension for when the Cascadians re-discover APFSDS. The other protection requirements are more or less self-explanatory, provided you can multiply by 2.54.  
Firepower:
The firepower requirements get interesting once you consider the option of low-pressure or high-pressure shaped charges. Low-pressure HEAT (similar to the pre-war 90mm Cockerill guns) can beat the low-penetration 13" requirement using a ~76mm tube, and the high-penetration requirement using something in the 85-100mm range. The high-pressure guns can beat the low-penetration requirement using an 85-90mm tube, while the 15" high-penetration requirement can be handled by a gun of about 105mm. So our new Texan employers are essentially asking us to clone the Cascadian gun. In terms of maxing out the firepower requirements, it looks like Texan loaders can't sling much more than Californian ones: around 25kg. The weight of a one-piece round is obviously variable (and depends on the type of projectile, its velocity and the composition of the cartridge case) but using 100mm UOF-412 as a reference you're looking at a maximum calibre of something like 80-90mm in order to allow loaders to sling full-bore AP and HE. If you instead limit yourself to HEAT-FS you're looking at 100-105mm guns. Going further and looking at APFSDS, you could probably get up to 120-130mm weapons. If you use separate shells and charges, then the maximum size of HE or solid shot that a loader can sling goes up to around 120mm. For HEAT-FS, this goes up even further to around 130-140mm. For APFSDS the issue actually ends up being the charge weight rather than the projectile weight.   
Mobility:
The range requirement comes down to a conversion factor of about 0.148 kg of fuel per hour per kW of power. In term of the range itself: 483 (baseline) and 805 (desired) km or range is impressive, and represents functionally one to two days of unrefueled driving. The power requirement is for 11.5kW/mt. Put all the above together and you can very quickly scope out the limits of the design space. For instance: a T-55 analogue will need a 556hp/415kW motor to make the cut in terms of PWR. It will then need around 1355lb/614.5kg of fuel to make the minimal 300mi range requirement. This translates (using a density of 850kg/m3 for diesel) to around 0.723m3 of fuel storage, or 723 litres. Using the 500mi requirement, you need around 1200l of fuel storage (which comes to nearly 3% of the vehicle's total mass) Looking at the ground pressure, this requirement seems to be based on a simple weight/track area calculation rather than MMP. The converted units come to around 95.8 kPa. This is fairly light, but certainly doable given the latitude we're allowed on width.  
Anyway, I hope this helps you landing that contract. Us former Californians have to stick together, after all.
 
{Tips oversized cowboy hat to you, says goodbye in exaggerated Southern accent, walks out of saloon}

If it hadn't been for Cottonmouth ARV
I'd be a Major a long time ago
Where'd you deploy from, where'd you withdraw?
What did you recon, Cottonmouth ARV?

*Eurobeat* 

CV90's big brother incoming: 

Remember that the submissions are measured by the judges not only against the specification but also against the other competitors.
Features which are included or excluded will be judged on their merits as part of a cohesive whole.

Remember that the submissions are measured by the judges not only against the specification but also against the other competitors.
Features which are included or excluded will be judged on their merits as part of a cohesive whole.

Not a practical proposition, really. You'll get a naturally vs artificially aged condition if you let it sit around for a while without messing with it any more, which for some precipitation hardened metals can be around halfway to the full artificial age.
 
That's quite the "if". And even if you *do*, there are a few reasons. Fabrication efficiency, cost, repairs, and the like all come to mind.

Part of my brain still refuses to accept that "solutionize" is an actual piece of metallurgical terminology and not something that George W. Bush came up with.  He's not a problemifier, he's a solutionizer.

While this is true, the solution heat treat is above that temperature, and everything should dissolve.
Forming the wrong precipitates is an issue if you age wrong or if you accidentally age via heat input such as welding later in the process.
 
welding itself is also an issue for precipitation hardened metals if done post-age as it remelts the HAZ had effectively solutionizes it, of course. This is what causes 6061, for example, to lose so much of its strength in the HAZ.

While this is true, the solution heat treat is above that temperature, and everything should dissolve.
Forming the wrong precipitates is an issue if you age wrong or if you accidentally age via heat input such as welding later in the process.
 
welding itself is also an issue for precipitation hardened metals if done post-age as it remelts the HAZ had effectively solutionizes it, of course. This is what causes 6061, for example, to lose so much of its strength in the HAZ.

While this is true, the solution heat treat is above that temperature, and everything should dissolve.
Forming the wrong precipitates is an issue if you age wrong or if you accidentally age via heat input such as welding later in the process.
 
welding itself is also an issue for precipitation hardened metals if done post-age as it remelts the HAZ had effectively solutionizes it, of course. This is what causes 6061, for example, to lose so much of its strength in the HAZ.

Why is the image for the last,most relevant bit, cut in half? The paranoid amongst us would suspect we're being had by a bait-and-switch.
Even if we assume that weight includes a factored-in Trophy system just in case it's fitted, that's still only around 2.5-3 tons including the ballast on the turret front (which is effectively built in on the M1A2C). Where is all the extra weight coming from, if we assume this is genuine?

That entire site of yours is an absolute goldmine. I even got my profile pic from there.

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others.
But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost.
With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

I think it has to do with the drive sprockets meshing with the end connectors, which are also the guide teeth. You'd need an all new incompatible concept of track link design to fill both those functions while also being wider.
Such a concept is the track with central guide teeth used on the HVSS Shermans.

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others.
But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost.
With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

That entire site of yours is an absolute goldmine. I even got my profile pic from there.

If it doesn't count as spam, there are some pictures of the spaced-out suspension on a hybrid M4 here.