Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ngcv'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Outer Rim
    • Open Discussion
    • Aviation
    • Elon Musk: Making Space Great Again
    • Naval Discussion
    • Mechanized Warfare
    • Ballistics Science Discussion
    • Infantry Tools & Tactics
    • Dr. Strangelove's Nuclear Palace
    • Biosciences
    • History, Culture, and Archaeology
    • Fiction & Entertainment
    • Computers, Software, and Tech Support
    • Historical Warfare
    • Sturgeon's Contests

Blogs

  • Of IS-7s and Other Things
  • Archive Awareness
  • Unstart's Blog
  • The Sherman Blog
  • U-47

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. Mighty_Zuk

    Future of AFVs

    I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads. I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. Here's my short post on why I think it should happen: I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell. An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
  2. Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned fighting vehicle. What we know now is that we don’t know so much. What is sure, the US Army : - wants 9 men strong dismounted section ; - doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ; - is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section. Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were : Griffin III from General Dynamic CV90 from BAE Lynx from Rheinmetall Maybe a proposal from SAIC ? My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ? CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption. What about monolithic forged hull ? What about decoupled running gear ? Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ? I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange.
×