Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

No image of an actual Griffin I yet, the only thing we've been allowed to see is a mock-up at AUSA: 

 

Awhe59a.jpg

 

tNyslWS.jpg

 

It's essentially a heavier Griffin II with "full-fledged" AJAX hull, stripped-down M1 turret and the XM360 120mm gun.

 

And then there's the Griffin III with its 50mm autocannon and Iron Fist APS:

 

wqJIRMs.jpg

Share this post


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

Griffin II

 

8UOJT2k.jpg

 

there https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-army-awards-general-dynamics-contract-for-mobile-protected-firepower-300768433.html available even larger version of same pic - up to 76 mpix https://prnewswire2-a.akamaihd.net/p/1893751/sp/189375100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_mbts0c4m/def_height/10000/def_width/10000/version/100011/type/1 although apparently anything more than ~5.6 mpix (2700x2062 pix) is just an upscale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^--- That was SAIC and ST Kinetics' proposal for the MPF program. It was eliminated from the competition a couple days ago (with the two remaining candidates being GDLS' Griffin and BAE's M8 Buford).

It's essentially the Singaporean ST Kinetics' NGAFV coupled with an elongated, Belgian CMI Cockerill 3105 turret (105mm Cockerill high-pressure gun).

Share this post


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

@Renegade334 @Clan_Ghost_Bear
Thanks. 
Can somebody tell me about this light tank?
TWrnb_RAVnI.jpg
if I understand correctly, Griffin 3 this is light tank with 50mm gun. But Griffin 2 was equipped 120mm smoothbore gun. Ok, what is it  ↑.  What the program for which it was created? 

 

 

Griffin III is an IFV

Griffin II is a light tank with a 105mm gun

 

Griffin II competes with the M8 and NGAFV-105 for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program, a light tank for Infantry BCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

Griffin III is an IFV

Griffin II is a light tank with a 105mm gun

 

Griffin II competes with the M8 and NGAFV-105 for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program, a light tank for Infantry BCT.

Well done, thank you. I thought Griffin III is evolution Griffin II.  It was confusing.

Share this post


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

 

According to this Shepard Media article (now behind a paywall) from last years AUSA it has a 105mm, and I believe that is an 105mm M35 barrel.

 

 

Yeah, no wonder I missed it, I don't have a SM subscription to read their articles. Thanks, though.

 

So the scheme is this:

- Griffin 1: 120mm

- Griffin 2: 105mm

- Griffin 3: 50mm

 

Wonder if they'll bother building that Griffin 1 or if it'll be relegated to being an optional upgrade to the Griffin 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Yeah, no wonder I missed it, I don't have a SM subscription to read their articles. Thanks, though.

 

So the scheme is this:

- Griffin 1: 120mm

- Griffin 2: 105mm

- Griffin 3: 50mm

 

Wonder if they'll bother building that Griffin 1 or if it'll be relegated to being an optional upgrade to the Griffin 2.

 

Following that trend with a polynomial trendline, the Griffin 4 is due to have a -45mm main armament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks much better now that they shaved some height off the hull - the Griffin I mockup (see my 2nd G1 pic above) was rather shocking to behold, as it made for a very big (and therefore very conspicuous) tank. Still, given that the hull lost some volume, I wonder if they're still using the same engine or if they chose something more compact (I doubt Cummins and Achates have reached the point where they can already -and confidently- implant their new OP engines inside MPF prototypes). The front sprocket at least shows that we're still dealing with a forward engine compartment.

 

It also feels like (the angle and the fact that the picture is cropped could be deceiving me, though) they moved the turret ring forward: the back of the turret doesn't look like it's hanging off the back of the G2 hull as much as it did on the G1 mockup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

It also feels like (the angle and the fact that the picture is cropped could be deceiving me, though) they moved the turret ring forward: the back of the turret doesn't look like it's hanging off the back of the G2 hull as much as it did on the G1 mockup.

The parallax is high. 

But, we can consider the center of the turret ring is at the lever of the forth roadwheel. The new external fuel tanks are longer than the Griffin-I rear sponsons.

Look at the position of the exhaust. 

Ct3s82xWAAEaUo9.jpg

So, turret seems to be at the same place. 

 

Trying to forward the turret means increasing the diving trend when riding off road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

-blah blah blah-

The front sprocket at least shows that we're still dealing with a forward engine compartment.

 

-blah- 

A true sign of all-aspect superiority. Guess I'm rooting for Griffin now.

 

Seriously though, they kinda need that added frontal protection because the weight economy will not favor much armor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 5:08 AM, Renegade334 said:

Wonder how much it weighs now, compared to the updated Buford (Level 1 configuration).

 

Apart from Tom Clancy - derived sources, is there any official confirmation that the M-8 was named? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Army pick 2 applicants for competition

"The Army picked its two traditional armored vehicle manufacturers, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, to build contending prototypes for its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, the service announced today. Each company will get up to $376 million to build 12 prototypes, with delivery starting in 14 months and testing in 16. In 2022, the Army will pick a final winner to build a planned 504 vehicles."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/army-picks-bae-gd-for-mpf-light-tank-prototypes/ 

ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ mobile protected firepower

Share this post


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

Is anyone familiar with this kit on the front of the hull in this picture? Doesn’t look like a mine roller or plow attachment, never seen it during my service. My guess is some sort of old TUSK kit? Don’t know how to properly insert images sorry. http://tinypic.com/r/e7xi0k/9

 

IIRC it was a ram that would let them push barriers out of the way without damaging the vehicle.

 

 

Share this post


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 Mighty_Zuk
      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).
    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...