Zadlo Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 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'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zadlo Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Renegade334 said: @Ramlaen: did you notice this? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 6 hours ago, Renegade334 said: IMHO, it's a bit small to be the mystery cylinder on the M1A2C, is very similar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 29, 2019 Report Share Posted March 29, 2019 Lord_James and Mighty_Zuk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted March 29, 2019 Report Share Posted March 29, 2019 Serge, Mighty_Zuk and Laviduce 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 29, 2019 Report Share Posted March 29, 2019 OMFV RFP https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=1e3d41739a8280047145f9a2b7d0c4d5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted March 31, 2019 Report Share Posted March 31, 2019 No news about the GD Griffin 3 MPF proposal ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted March 31, 2019 Report Share Posted March 31, 2019 9 hours ago, Serge said: No news about the GD Griffin 3 MPF proposal ? Wasn’t Griffin 2 for MPF & Griffin 3 for the optionally manned requirement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted March 31, 2019 Report Share Posted March 31, 2019 Yes. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted March 31, 2019 Report Share Posted March 31, 2019 Was linked on otvaga by tankoff. Laviduce and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zadlo Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 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) 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog: Has the US moved away from DU armor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 17 minutes ago, alanch90 said: Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 1 hour ago, alanch90 said: Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog: 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. LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNT11593 Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 https://twitter.com/MILTECH1/status/1113523603012714496 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 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’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted April 4, 2019 Report Share Posted April 4, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoflSeal Posted April 4, 2019 Report Share Posted April 4, 2019 22 hours ago, 2805662 said: Just need someone to post a pic of the turret serial to check whether the suffix is ‘U’. "159498M" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted April 4, 2019 Report Share Posted April 4, 2019 27 minutes ago, RoflSeal said: "159498M" 5345-A as an Australian example. What are the other suffixes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 4, 2019 Report Share Posted April 4, 2019 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. Serge and 2805662 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.