Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/us_army_details_next_generation_combat_vehicle_requirements.html

 

Requirements for the NGCV are quite vague.

Actually, NGCV is a very broad program and the core of it, that we've been talking about, is the OMFV - Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.

 

It consists of:

MBT.

OMFV.

Robotic Wingman.

MPF.

AMPV.

 

Two quite notable requirements of the OMFV are a capability to fit 2 vehicles inside a C-17 from which we infer a maximum GVM of 37.5 tons (if we round down the payload to 75 tons from 77.5 to account for less than ideal weight distribution).

And of course 6 men capacity.

 

A 6-man capacity was the main issue they had with the Bradley back in the GCV program. 

Literally as a key improvement to keep the Brad viable, they looked almost entirely on its capacity. They wanted 9 men.

 

How can they make the very same mistake with a clean sheet design?

 

They gotta change their mindset on this one. Change the tool, not the hand that uses it!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Army picked which infantry brigade to convert into a 16th armor brigade.

 

This will provide the nation a 16th ABCT bringing the total number BCTs in the Regular Army (RA) and Army National Guard (ARNG) to 58. There will be a total of 31 BCTs in the RA, to include 11 ABCTs, 13 IBCTs and seven SBCTs. The ARNG will have a total of 27 BCTs, to include five ABCTs, 20 IBCTs and two SBCTs, ensuring a more balanced distribution between its light and heavy fighting forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

colleague. "From the FB magazine" Whith out link and proofs. That's why I decided to ask here.:wacko:  

 

Perhaps they confused it with Iron Curtain on Strykers, the US Army is buying enough Trophy units for 4 ABCT worth of Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Perhaps they confused it with Iron Curtain on Strykers, the US Army is buying enough Trophy units for 4 ABCT worth of Abrams.

And the USMC is buying for 81 (IIRC) vehicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding for the now cancelled AAV-SU might be repurposed to give the AAV a remote weapon station.

 

"Reinvestment decisions will be made separately and focus on increasing lethality of the force,” Pacheco explained. “AAV SU divestiture assets may allow us to procure underfunded initiatives in the AAV modification line such as Tactical Communication Modernization and a Remote Weapons Station.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from the same article, the A5 Bradley is kill.

 

The Army has already terminated the Bradley A5 upgrade program in favor of the new Next-Generation Combat Vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also a bit dubitative on USAR suddenly having the funds to create and build a whole new turret with a new gun and autoloader AND possibly a new armor pack (NEA/NGAP or NGAP v1.1?) for the entire vehicle. I know they cancelled a bunch of proposed upgrades lately (thus freeing some of the moolah) but suddenly proposing an A3 when the M1A2D has just started development sounds too good to be true in my book. It's true that they've been meaning to give the hypothetical M1A3 a XM360E1 since the FCS program and that jamming a Meggitt horizontal compact autoloader into the turret bustle is something they've been talking about for a while already, but money has always been the ultimate c**kblocker to this multitude of wet dreams and Drummond's prediction seems a bit too good to be true. If anything, I expect them to continuously upgrade the Abrams using the SEPs rather than one big, instant package.

 

That said...if they did actually manage to unlock a couple billions to finance R&D and acquisition, good for the Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that Drummond is probably waaaay off base with the armor- we've seen the M1A2C prototypes running around with pretty large weight simulators, I highly doubt they're moving to a lighter armor package. I also doubt better IED armor is on the table when TUSK works pretty damn well and the focus is rapidly shifting back to high end war.

Also, while the new gun and autoloader are nice features, they don't actually add that much capability to the vehicle for their cost. Trophy and AMP capability are far more important, and Trophy isn't exactly cheap.

And finally, smaller turret!? The hell is he smoking? Smaller turret would have to be new build, which is not cheap, would decrease volume needed for systems (though without the loader there is more space available for juggling around), and if width reduction is involved would by definition reduce ammo capacity and squish the loader into the gun.

 

Drummond is a hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

(though without the loader there is more space available for juggling around)

 

That autoloader plan also proposes converting the loader into something akin to an EWO or drone pilot (either small UAVs or UGVs like the robotic wingmen). Still, to perform those duties he'd need some space and making his station more cramped would go in the way of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Drummond likes to theorycraft.

 

2 hours ago, Belesarius said:
3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Drummond is a hack.

That is a pretty widely agreed with opinion on this forum.

 

IDK, I'd think he'd fit in quite well around here. The reason why I felt the need to post was he has industry contacts a decent bit of access.  Apparently, they think he has pull in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

 

IDK, I'd think he'd fit in quite well around here. The reason why I felt the need to post was he has industry contacts a decent bit of access.  Apparently, they think he has pull in the UK.

 

He can't control the narrative here so I doubt he would stick around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×