Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Lynx will probably be selected now that it isn't hampered by its size.

 

AFAIK U.S. Army reps has said after trials that Lynx is a bit 'obese'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Serge said:

- what is the interest in having an optionally maned IFV ? I can understand the need for an UGV, but what kind of task can one give to a vehicle without its crew ?

 

Only engineer versions of NGCV will be probably unmanned I think so. Just like BAE tries to do it with Terriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

@Ramlaen: did you notice this?

 

rbqyA7V.jpg

 

6LOgMdM.jpg

 

IMHO, it's a bit small to be the mystery cylinder on the M1A2C, but it's the right shape. A zoom on that part of the exhibit reveals it to be the Blackstone Vehicle Mount Kit (VMK).

 

https://www.leonardodrs.com/media/6608/blackstone_vm_datasheet.pdf

 

It looks like a bicone antenna but it is like half the size of the one on the M1A2C.

 

The antenna on the Stryker is the blue force tracker.

https://www.army.mil/article-amp/127314/battle_tested_stryker_upgrades_to_new_blue_force_tracking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 11:46 PM, Zadlo said:

 

AFAIK U.S. Army reps has said after trials that Lynx is a bit 'obese'.

Any sources/references for that? Would be interested to read what was said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Any sources/references for that? Would be interested to read what was said. 

 

From my friend who is working with American defence industry from the business side. I would call him a 'lobbyist' as well.

 

But on the other it has said Lynx was still a very good IFV. So RLS probably has to slim it down to fit air mobility requirement (two base vehicles in one C-17)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog:

2037403_original.jpg

Has the US moved away from DU armor?

No. It has developed a new family of armor to replace the HAP-1/2/3, but no info on the status of the DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog:

2037403_original.jpg

Has the US moved away from DU armor?

 

You will also notice that I made that image and posted it in this thread about two weeks ago.

 

We don't know the composition of the new armor in the M1A2C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post.  

What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver  to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Sorry for the double post.  

What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver  to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.

Protection against IEDs is part of the TUSK. An improvement in the frontal armor was needed to cope with new and emerging threats like the T-14.

Share this post


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

No. It has developed a new family of armor to replace the HAP-1/2/3, but no info on the status of the DU.

Just need someone to post a pic of the turret serial to check whether the suffix is ‘U’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Protection against IEDs is part of the TUSK. An improvement in the frontal armor was needed to cope with new and emerging threats like the T-14.

I´m refering to this "There is a new armor package inside the turret and the hull..." (1:04).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94E8DGLmjw&list=PL72124C26D466E6CB&index=370&t=0s
the engineers need to accommodate a lot of new stuff in an already weight limited tank, thats why my first intuition was that they were making the armor lighter. If i had to speculate i would bet that the protection requirements are to be able to resist Svinets 1-2 and whatever the Type 99A shoots. At this moment there is little to no practical reason to be protected against unicorn projectiles such as Vacuum.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

What are the other suffixes? 

 

Quote

Turret:


XXXX - BRL-1 or BRL-2 armor package.
XXXXU - Heavy Armor Package.
XXXXM - Heavy Armor Package (some US tanks have it, don't know why that change in letter).
XXXXA - Heavy Armor Package variant for Australia.
XXXXE - Export Armor Package for Arab states.

Hull:

XXXXD - Tank was made in Detroit Tank Arsenal.
XXXXL - Tank was made in Lima Army TankPlant/Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

 

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...