Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

8Uo7Z5x.jpg

 

or like this:

  Reveal hidden contents

DIX_gtJXcAA4KLd.jpg

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

 

sDsAjmV.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7fvB4U5.jpg

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1541887.html

US Army 1st Armored Division soldiers are testing the latest JLTV armored vehicles.

1000w_q95.jpg

 

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.

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

Spoiler

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

1000w_q95.jpg

 

FWp71.jpg

 

sAUvH.jpg

 

Lr3MN.jpg

 

l9Sgk.jpg

 

9J6Cx.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rear tow/lifting holes also seem to be reinforced compared to the older Abrams:

cn8uOmA.jpg

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.

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 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...