Ramlaen Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 17 minutes ago, Serge said: Maybe the MCT-30 integration is not exactly what they want. I don’t if the US law call for a new RFI to order additional batches. To add, the MCT-30 on Dragoons were procured outside of the normal method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said: The MCT-30 is not suitable for integration with ATGMs. If you want a Javelin or any other ATGM, you gotta either mount it on the side of the turret like this: Reveal hidden contents or like this: Reveal hidden contents Both of them are absolutely terrible options, because it makes them highly susceptible to damage from environmental effects and weaponry that would not really bother the turret's armor. Additionally, the US Army may want to couple this effort with the APS program. 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: To use M-SHORAD as an example, the Boeing turret that the Army asked them to stick on a Stryker did what the Army asked for, but the Army ended up choosing the (better) Moog/Leonardo RIwP turret. Will that happen with the Kongsberg MCT-30? Dunno, but there are a lot of competitors who will try to woo the Army. I have to disagree (from CV-90 thread): New Kongsberg MCT-30-based turret has built in ATGM/missile launcher, while also having same gun and RWS. I doubt it would be that hard to change the MMP launcher to an FGM-148, Spike, or FIM-92 (or the TOW series, if the army wants to handicap themselves). Unless the army is looking for something similar to the Namer turret, I don’t think they’re going to find much better. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 Yeah that might be what Kongsberg responds to the RFI with, I think the point being missed here is that the 2nd Cav's urgent operational need doesn't extend to a fleet wide selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 37 minutes ago, Lord_James said: I have to disagree (from CV-90 thread): New Kongsberg MCT-30-based turret has built in ATGM/missile launcher, while also having same gun and RWS. I doubt it would be that hard to change the MMP launcher to an FGM-148, Spike, or FIM-92 (or the TOW series, if the army wants to handicap themselves). Unless the army is looking for something similar to the Namer turret, I don’t think they’re going to find much better. I disagree with your disagreement. This is an entirely new turret from Kongsberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 Quote U.S. Marines with 2nd Low Altitude Air Defense Battalion Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems Detachment, attached to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response-Central Command, fire the Marine Air Defense Integrated System Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle during a live-fire range in southwest Asia Feb. 18, 2019. The MADIS is the first vehicle to utilize kinetic and non-kinetic measures to disable Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems. SPMAGTF-CR-CC is specifically designed to be capable of deploying aviation, ground, and logistics forces forward at a moment’s notice. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Jack C. Howell) VPZ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 M3 Stuarts that somehow made it to Europe with British forces, here during and after Operation Charnwood. The first vehicle appears to have what I assume is wading gear attached at the rear still. Collimatrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted March 14, 2019 Report Share Posted March 14, 2019 Recoil system of the M256: Belesarius, Valryon, LoooSeR and 8 others 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZloyKrolik Posted March 15, 2019 Report Share Posted March 15, 2019 That is one big ass spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That’s Suspicious Posted March 15, 2019 Report Share Posted March 15, 2019 How often do they have to replace those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted March 15, 2019 Report Share Posted March 15, 2019 I thought they used pneumatic or combination liquid-gas pistons for recoil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 15, 2019 Report Share Posted March 15, 2019 23 minutes ago, Lord_James said: I thought they used pneumatic or combination liquid-gas pistons for recoil. One of the reasons the M256 and Rhm-120 are not actually the same gun. Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted March 15, 2019 Report Share Posted March 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Lord_James said: I thought they used pneumatic or combination liquid-gas pistons for recoil. The gun's recoil mechanism is composed of two hydraulic retarders and a hydropneumatic assembly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Rh-120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted March 16, 2019 Report Share Posted March 16, 2019 5 hours ago, VPZ said: The gun's recoil mechanism is composed of two hydraulic retarders and a hydropneumatic assembly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_Rh-120 Maybe you should have read what Ramlaen posted above your comment. The Rh-120 and M256 are NOT the same gun. The M256 is based on the Rh-120, but at some point it diverges. It's sort of a K2 vs Altay case. One is based on the other, but the differences are still substantial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 17, 2019 Report Share Posted March 17, 2019 https://defence-blog.com/army/pentagon-to-procure-pre-production-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicles.html Spoiler Pentagon intends to purchase pre-production vehicles as part of Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program, according to the federal business opportunities website. The OMFV is a new combat vehicle that will provide Armor Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) a mobile, purpose built manned platform that will maneuver Soldiers to a point of positional advantage to engage in close combat. It will deliver decisive lethality and Soldiers to the battlefield during the execution of combined arms maneuver. “The Government intends to award up to two Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping (RP) contracts. The MTA RP will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract with a base award that may include multiple options,” said in report. Pentagon plans to procure 14 pre-production vehicles (per contractor), two Ballistic Hull and Turrets (per contractor), armor coupons, and logistics products. There are no small business set-asides planned for this solicitation. Also added that the proposals will be due approximately 180 days after the requests for proposals is released. Contract award is targeted for the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year (FY) 2020. One of the U.S. Army’s top research centers has already achieved considerable success in developing a prototype of the next-generation combat vehicle. Some sources claimed that the United States Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) are now nearing production of demonstrator of new robotic vehicle build onto a surrogate platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted March 17, 2019 Report Share Posted March 17, 2019 6 hours ago, David Moyes said: armor coupons, I see this term used in solicitations frequently. From the context, I’m guessing they’re samples of production-standard armour packages. That said, I’d love a definition of what constitutes an ‘armor coupon’ (apart from an inconvenient-to-carry food stamp?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 7 hours ago, 2805662 said: That said, I’d love a definition of what constitutes an ‘armor coupon’ Armor coupons are armor samples for ballistic testing, not integrated into a vehicle's structure. A small panel, say 0.5x0.5m, built to the same spec as the actual armor but in a small easy-to-test and cheap package. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1541887.html US Army 1st Armored Division soldiers are testing the latest JLTV armored vehicles. Quote In February 2019, soldiers of the 1st Tank Brigade of the 1st Armored Division of the US Army in Fort Stewart, Georgia, took part in a 4x4 driving training and maintenance workshop for the latest light armored vehicles (Joint Light Tactical Vehicles) produced by Oshkosh Defense. This type of light armored vehicles should soon enter into service with the brigade. In total, the US Army plans to acquire 49099 JLTV vehicles by 2040, and the US Marine Corps - 4483 vehicles by 2022 (the total requirements of the Marine Corps are 9091 units). The total cost of the program is estimated at more than $ 30 billion. The Oshkosh JLTV should be made in five versions - 2 man cargo M1279 Utility (JLTV-UTL), general purpose 4 man M1280 General Purpose (JLTV-GP), M1281 Close Combat Weapons Carrier (JLTV-CCWC) and 30-carrier mm gun M1278 Heavy Guns Carrier - General Purpose (JLTV-GP), as well as the tractor (JLTV-T). The creation of other variants is underway, in particular, the variant of the reconnaissance vehicle JLTV-RV has already been developed and is being planned for production. Spoiler Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 Clan_Ghost_Bear and Lord_James 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC GiantDad Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 the question I've got is what armor package they'll have. After all the NRC licensure process is rather long and tedious, will they use WHA as a uranium substitute like I've heard Australia did(don't quote me on that because I'm not sure) will they have a similar package to the Arab tanks or do you think they actually went through the whole NRC process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, AC GiantDad said: @Ramlaen the question I've got is what armor package they'll have. After all the NRC licensure process is rather long and tedious, will they use WHA as a uranium substitute like I've heard Australia did(don't quote me on that because I'm not sure) will they have a similar package to the Arab tanks or do you think they actually went through the whole NRC process I don't have a good answer for that because we don't know what the SEPv3's armor package consists of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 Part 2 of The Chieftain revisiting the Abrams: Spoiler Laviduce and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 https://www.toledoblade.com/politics/2019/03/16/abrams-titan-tanks-plant-lima-ohio-defense-spending-army M1A2C being manufactured at Lima, something new is the plate with 3 holes on the hull front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 The rear tow/lifting holes also seem to be reinforced compared to the older Abrams: In the pics you posted it looks like theres an extra plate tacked on doubling the thickness. Theyre not playing around with the weight gains. Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNT11593 Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 Holy crap are actually making tanks with a green base paint again. How long has it been since they switched to desert tan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/19/2019 at 4:44 PM, Ramlaen said: https://www.toledoblade.com/politics/2019/03/16/abrams-titan-tanks-plant-lima-ohio-defense-spending-army removing "/1200x" from image links on that site - like that: https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima.JPGhttps://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima-1.JPGhttps://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/16/CTY-lima-2.JPGhttps://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-3.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-4.JPG https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2019/03/17/CTY-lima-5.JPG allows to download them in their original size - around 20-30 Mpix and 5-9 Mb each in this particular case. Ramlaen and Serge 2 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.