2805662 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 8 hours ago, Ramlaen said: I don't know which .pdf that page was pulled from for the DARPA MUM-T update. Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 38 minutes ago, 2805662 said: Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. It also helps clarify this concept art. On 3/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Mighty_Zuk said: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/16/first-next-gen-combat-vehicle-and-robotic-wingman-prototypes-to-emerge-in-2020/ NGCV prototypes in 2020, 2022, and 2024. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 25 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: It also helps clarify this concept art. That it does. Nice pic - that vehicle has very clean (but realistic) lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: It also helps clarify this concept art. I don't like this one little bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 5 hours ago, Jim Warford said: I don't like this one little bit... It seems to be something of an MPF equivalent but unmanned, I think. I don't see any hatches on it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 As quoted, this is an unmanned tank killer concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 So...a blown-up BAE Black Knight with Buford steroids, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Interesting. Is the pepper pot muzzle device indicative of a 105mm? XM35? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 No, it should be the 120 mm XM360 tank gun. Look at the low-quality photo from the presentation, the image at the lower right shows 120 mm main gun ammo. Same muzzle break.. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 17, 2018 Report Share Posted July 17, 2018 Ah, makes sense. Trying to find the Watervleit Arsenal report for this year. It talked about production of XM35 tubes, but would be good to see whether the XM360 tubes were being produced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 17, 2018 Report Share Posted July 17, 2018 Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 17, 2018 Report Share Posted July 17, 2018 some more on the XM360 and the effect of a muzzle brake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 Experimenting with 2 man crews. Within that, the Army needs $98.6 million to produce three sets of experimental prototypes of an NGCV Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) that will take part in operational experiments for manned-unmanned teaming evaluations and “the applicability of two man crew (2MC) to achieve overmatch in the future fight,” the reprogramming document states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 4 hours ago, Ramlaen said: Experimenting with 2 man crews. I swear the NGCV is like 100% identical to the Carmel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRose Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 On 7/15/2018 at 8:11 PM, 2805662 said: Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. Maybe that's because it hasn't been given yet. 42 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: I swear the NGCV is like 100% identical to the Carmel. Wasn't there a US proposed joint Indo-Israeli-American IFV/AFV project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 44 minutes ago, MRose said: Maybe that's because it hasn't been given yet. Wasn't there a US proposed joint Indo-Israeli-American IFV/AFV project? Never heard of such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRose Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Never heard of such thing. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-has-offered-india-co-production-of-armoured-carriers-along-with-israel-government/articleshow/62793562.cms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 19, 2018 Report Share Posted July 19, 2018 Northen Fleet after M4s found M3 Lee. 3 more tanks inside of the ship were found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 Hey all, who's excited for a new issue of ARMOR? No one? I have spent hours going through armor issues from the 40's through the 90's, and have found it a generally entertaining and rewarding experience. Even as a civilian enthusiast I can find plenty in these old issues that is worth reading. However, current issues are either far too advanced for a simple person like me to understand, or are just the most obnoxious sort of business-speak nonsense. For example, the new issue features an exciting article titled "Using Logistics Release Point Meetings to Mitigate Persistent Friction Points in Cavalry Squadron Operation." LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 On 7/17/2018 at 7:32 AM, 2805662 said: Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept: How can this vehicle be a "tank killer", it has no advantages in protection and firepower over MBT. Just like Russin "Sprut-SD" - it's not a "tank killer" but that's how media calls it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead). As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, Renegade334 said: It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead). As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew). Uran 9 should not be used as a scale/show of proper military grade UGV capabilities as company behind it was almost a scam, and there were even arrests of company managers IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, Renegade334 said: It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. The support of higher pressures is mentionled for the XM360E1 only; the basic lightweight XM360 seems to be designed to deliver the same performance as the existing M256, but in a vehicle at half the Abrams' weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Renegade334 said: It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead). As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew). Still not enough. The real "tank killers" are ATGMs (because they have real firepower advantage over tanks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 The name may be to calm the horses - it’s not a tank, it’s a tank killer. Like the pre-war combat car/tank naming convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.