Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

On 4/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, LoooSeR said:

Poland, few years ago IIRC.

And led to a change in turret orientation for rail movement for A3s: gun now at 2 o’clock, over the engine exhaust, at -5 degrees depression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Krieger22 said:

 

I’m fortunate to be attending Chong Ju tomorrow. Should be a good day, with a Mech Inf combat team, cav troop, combat engineers, artillery battery, attack aviation, & CAS all live firing. 

Share this post


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

I’m fortunate to be attending Chong Ju tomorrow. Should be a good day, with a Mech Inf combat team, cav troop, combat engineers, artillery battery, attack aviation, & CAS all live firing. 

 

Any chance you'll be able to grab pictures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Any chance you'll be able to grab pictures?

Absolutely. Due to the use of lasers etc. only cell phone cameras are permitted, but I’ll get some pics at the static display area & post them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


https://defence-blog.com/army/jltv-deemed-not-operationally-suitable-in-a-gao-report.html

 

Quote

“The Army and Marine Corps recently concluded operational testing for JLTV and found the vehicles to be survivable for the crew and effective for small combat and transport missions,” the GAO said in its 17th annual survey of defense acquisitions and pointing that: “but not operationally suitable because of their high maintenance needs, low reliability, training and manual deficiencies, and safety shortcomings.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

So how much taxpayer money have we used on this thing so far?

 

GAO rating something not operationally suitable isn't something to take at face value. Much of their criticisms have already been addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these issues with basically every major procurement program so far give me some doubts.

  1. Is this abundance of reports of deficiencies/issues, a result of unparalleled transparency within the procurement system? Or is the procurement not nearly streamlined enough to cope with major projects anymore?
  2. Is the Futures Command supposed to help streamline these processes? And if so, then by what degree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Is this abundance of reports of deficiencies/issues, a result of unparalleled transparency within the procurement system?

 

I think that the US system is at times too transparent, especially when modern programs are being compared to cold war era programs.

Share this post


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

 

GAO rating something not operationally suitable isn't something to take at face value. Much of their criticisms have already been addressed.

 

 

Yeah, I not saying this is the worst thing ever and it's a complete failure. I am genuinely curious though how much development/R&D cost have gone into this thing regardless. Issues are bound to come up when procuring any new piece of equipment. Plus I'm sure everyone here already knows about the mess that generally is U.S. Military procurement so no need to beat that dead horse. 

 

Armchair general pants on: I don't really understand the point of this vehicle......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of groups like GAO is specifically to be as critical as humanly possible. A hypothetical issue like a poor service life on a tire, while not impeding the function of a vehicle, can have it stated to be "not operationally suitable".

 

The only pieces of equipment that are "fully operationally suitable" have either been through decades of use & refinement... or only exist on powerpoint presentations. Poor training & manuals, even if legit criticisms, are hardly reasons to prevent acquisition of a vehicle. I heavily doubt the GAO would have found the M3 Medium Tank's Training and Manuals operationally suitable as the US was desperately trying to build up an armored force in early WW2.

Share this post


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

 

I think that the US system is at times too transparent, especially when modern programs are being compared to cold war era programs.

Sometimes I'm almost inclined to say they need less transparency.

 

If Apple starts being transparent with how many times their engineers had "oh fuck!" moments, I think people would not even consider buying their products, even though by release all these issues are eliminated.

Share this post


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

Armchair general pants on: I don't really understand the point of this vehicle......

 

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

Share this post


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

 

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

Share this post


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

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

So to somewhat add to what AP said, what's exactly wrong with the JLTV in the aspect of a major power conflict?

Is the desired route a larger battle bus like the VBMR Griffon?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

 

I think the point is that the Humvee isn't just used as a basic utility vehicle, JLTV was meant to replace it in situations where Humvee's had to eat IED's and partake in heavy urban combat.

 

43 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So to somewhat add to what AP said, what's exactly wrong with the JLTV in the aspect of a major power conflict?

Is the desired route a larger battle bus like the VBMR Griffon?

 

Upgrading a Humvee fleet (that you have many thousands of) to JLTV is a lower priority than upgrading MBT, IFV, artillery etc. The US Army doesn't have infinite money and has to make choices.

 

If a situation requires the use of 'battle buses' then the US Army has more MRAPS than it knows what to do with.

Share this post


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

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

I remember when the Humvee first came into service.  oO

 

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...