Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

Recoil system of the M256:  

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Yeah, that bolt on, four round launcher seems pretty versatile. Looked at it on the W&E Platt MR660 mount on the Dillon Aero stand at Eurosatory. Remarkably simple.

How do you know it's 4-round? Did you ask a representative?

Because previously it was said to be 3-round launchers (although the design itself permits any amount of ammo).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow it looks like the Army really does intend to cut off the Bradley and AMPV in FY2020.

 

https://about.bgov.com/blog/army-mulls-31-6-billion-shift-armor-copters-war-plan/

The plans to cut $1.68 billion from the Bradley A4 Fighting Vehicle, the newest and improved version, may come as a surprise after the Army this summer said it struck a deal for more than 400 of the vehicles. Work on the Bradley is done primarily in York, Pennsylvania. Separately, the Army is working on a new A5 version of the Bradley vehicle, but that wasn’t reflected in the plans detailed by the two people.

Another BAE program—the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle—would face almost $480 million in cuts, under the Army’s plans. Oshkosh Corp.’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program would also take an $837 million hit under the Army’s proposal and Sikorsky’s UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters would be cut by $464 million, the two persons said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How do you know it's 4-round? Did you ask a representative?

Because previously it was said to be 3-round launchers (although the design itself permits any amount of ammo).

 

Should’ve quoted for clarity. I’m referring to the Arnold Defense Fletcher launcher, usually exhibited with APKWS-2, which has four ready rounds loaded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A4 cutoff doesn't surprise me (already guessed it yesterday on AW forums) But even the AMPV? Jesus as if things couldn't get any worse. 

 

But hey I'll just repeat what I said on AW forums. Big Army is gonna cuttoff/Cancel all these developed and basically ready vehicles in favor of sinking billions into some fancy new projects. That is said projects will get canned without a single serial vehicle being made flushing those billions of $$$$ down the toilet. Remember the GCV anyone? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

But hey I'll just repeat what I said on AW forums. Big Army is gonna cuttoff/Cancel all these developed and basically ready vehicles in favor of sinking billions into some fancy new projects. That is said projects will get canned without a single serial vehicle being made flushing those billions of $$$$ down the toilet. Remember the GCV anyone? 

 

Reprioritizing towards the CFTs priorities. Don't need the AMPV for the fight they have in mind. IDK about the JLTV, Drummond has been making very vague comments about it. NGCV (and RCV) reminds me a lot more of FCS than GCV in its ambitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the FY19 budget request, the 2020 to 2023 numbers for (you can guesstimate how much 2024 would add in the FY20 budget request).

 

Bradley A4 =  ~$1.9 billion

AMPV = ~$2.5 billion

JLTV = ~$4.9 billion

 

The AMPV and JLTV cuts are not small but aren't substantial relative to the overall procurement plan.

 

The Bradley A4 on the other hand takes a substantial hit but is not kill after all. One thing that wasn't clear in the article was whether A5 money was counted in that figure.

Edited by Ramlaen
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Looking at the FY19 budget request, the 2020 to 2023 numbers for (you can guesstimate how much 2024 would add in the FY20 budget request).

 

Bradley A4 =  ~$1.9 billion

AMPV = ~$2.5 billion

JLTV = ~$4.9 billion

 

The AMPV and JLTV cuts are not small but aren't substantial relative to the overall procurement plan.

 

The Bradley A4 on the other hand takes a substantial hit but is not kill after all.

The 1000 NM cannon and FVL aren't going to fund themselves! Wonder what's up with JLTV given how much effort, how important and how good it was supposed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
1 hour ago, MRose said:

The 1000 NM cannon and FVL aren't going to fund themselves! Wonder what's up with JLTV given how much effort, how important and how good it was supposed?

 

If my math is halfway accurate the cut is roughly 17% for the Army's JLTV in that time period.

 

I'd imagine we'll get some clarity on what's going in the next couple of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's probably a stupid question but.... Why not move some of the Bradley's APS funds to fast track the AMPV's own APS, stick a new turret that already has an integrated APS on it, and call it an M2A5? 

Cost. Same as with the Abrams, there are a lot of vehicles in service, and the budget isn't infinite, and therefore low-cost upgrades are desired. Low cost implies minimal changes in structure and fittings. Brand-new turrets with built-in APS are quite a bit more expensive than APS upgrade packages, and usually involve longer lead times, not a good thing for the current European focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Cost. Same as with the Abrams, there are a lot of vehicles in service, and the budget isn't infinite, and therefore low-cost upgrades are desired. Low cost implies minimal changes in structure and fittings. Brand-new turrets with built-in APS are quite a bit more expensive than APS upgrade packages, and usually involve longer lead times, not a good thing for the current European focus.

But funds for a turret clearly exist. They went with the MCT-30 first, which is fine even though they were already committed to the APS program. 

Now they spent even more money integrating that same turret on an ACV, which is a bad call IMO. They only have one brigade so far getting that turret. It's still not beyond the point of no return to switch to a more capable one.

 

The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, it may be best for the US Army to go for just low cost incremental upgrades to the Bradley.

As the OMFV gets preferential budgetary treatment, the idea that an AMPV will ever replace a Bradley seems unlikely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. To the best of my knowledge the current projected future versions of the Brad (A4, and perhaps A5 as well) are intended to retain the existing turret. While a testbed with the MCT-30 exists, the thousands-strong fleet will not be rearmed any time soon.

2. The MCT-30 has been successfully integrated on the Stryker. The operational requirement was to get that into service ASAP, and that seems to have succeeded. The MCT-30 can probably be modified later to carry APS equipment, if the designers were even semi-competent (and I believe they are competent).

What turret with integrated APS existed at the time of selection? How many could be fielded right now? MCT-30 was the right choice at the time and still is.

3. The MCT-30 is now in the army's supply train and training. They know its quirks and it's cleared for service. So why wouldn't the Marines go for that for the new ACV? Again, i'd be very surprised if it isn't upgradeable.

22 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term.

No, the US Army is trying to get results fast and at low cost. The Brad turret is going to be around for quite a while, so integrating an APS on it is important; but it is getting old and a bit outdated, and the MCT-30 is the best option available to the US for quick fielding-there are already active Strykers with the things in Europe.

No turret currently in mass production has integrated APS, so getting turrets now and fitting APS later isn't a bad choice.

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

1. To the best of my knowledge the current projected future versions of the Brad (A4, and perhaps A5 as well) are intended to retain the existing turret. While a testbed with the MCT-30 exists, the thousands-strong fleet will not be rearmed any time soon.

2. The MCT-30 has been successfully integrated on the Stryker. The operational requirement was to get that into service ASAP, and that seems to have succeeded. The MCT-30 can probably be modified later to carry APS equipment, if the designers were even semi-competent (and I believe they are competent).

What turret with integrated APS existed at the time of selection? How many could be fielded right now? MCT-30 was the right choice at the time and still is.

3. The MCT-30 is now in the army's supply train and training. They know its quirks and it's cleared for service. So why wouldn't the Marines go for that for the new ACV? Again, i'd be very surprised if it isn't upgradeable.

No, the US Army is trying to get results fast and at low cost. The Brad turret is going to be around for quite a while, so integrating an APS on it is important; but it is getting old and a bit outdated, and the MCT-30 is the best option available to the US for quick fielding-there are already active Strykers with the things in Europe.

No turret currently in mass production has integrated APS, so getting turrets now and fitting APS later isn't a bad choice.

 

It appears that the MCT-30 either cannot accept an APS, or will have a very hard time doing so.

BAE is offering its CV90 Mark IV IFV to numerous customers in 2 versions. One version using the MCT-30 turret without an APS, and one with an in-house developed D-series turret with an integrated APS.

The main difference, though, is that the MCT is unmanned while the D-series turret is manned.

 

I believe the main issues were that the MCT-30 was too small and had low power output for external systems. This is the same problem the Bradley faces right now (albeit in a different magnitude).

If BAE could not integrate the Iron Fist LC, which is tauted as the least power consuming system out there, and definitely the smallest one, on the MCT-30, then it has quite a problem my dude.

 

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

One version using the MCT-30 turret without an APS, and one with an in-house developed D-series turret with an integrated APS.

You're missing 2 important points with that line.

The first is that BAE are not the OEM of the MCT-30. It's not their design to modify, that's Kongsberg's job. BAE are offering integration onto the CV90 they sell. The absence of APS integration on current-production MCT-30 does not prove it to be impossible.

The second is that the D series is not ready for mass production. At all. They say it'll integrate APS, but they don't have anything more than mockups of Iron Fist on the thing. And Iron Fist is also not production ready.

 

I want a source on the claims that the MCT-30 is too small and doesn't have enough power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Cost. Same as with the Abrams, there are a lot of vehicles in service, and the budget isn't infinite, and therefore low-cost upgrades are desired. Low cost implies minimal changes in structure and fittings. Brand-new turrets with built-in APS are quite a bit more expensive than APS upgrade packages, and usually involve longer lead times, not a good thing for the current European focus.

But funds for a turret clearly exist. They went with the MCT-30 first, which is fine even though they were already committed to the APS program. 

Now they spent even more money integrating that same turret on an ACV, which is a bad call IMO. They only have one brigade so far getting that turret. It's still not beyond the point of no return to switch to a more capable one.

 

The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, it may be best for the US Army to go for just low cost incremental upgrades to the Bradley.

As the OMFV gets preferential budgetary treatment, the idea that an AMPV will ever replace a Bradley seems unlikely. 

 

Because armor has limited utility in the fight  the US Army is now really training for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.

×
×
  • Create New...