Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

On 5/12/2019 at 1:03 PM, 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.  

 

As true as this is, the age is honestly rather cause enough for replacement. The things are slow, maintenance intensive, not particularly stable, and lack some "creature comforts" that have rather proven to be necessary in certain operations (the classic case being no effective AC in desert fighting...). You might be able to get away with a deep overhaul, but likely for the same costs as a newer design.

 

22 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

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.

 

I thought one of the ideas of JLTV was to actually save money in the long run by allowing the vast mishmash of hurriedly-acquired MRAPs to be liquidated in favor of one standard family of machines. Seems a bit like hurting yourself in the future to save money now by keeping all of the different humvee & MRAP configs in use. It's just odd because so many of the other procurement decisions being made seem to focus on this rebuilding-for-the-long-term prioritization and cutting back of interim/stopgap work (such as Bradley/Abrams upgrades getting scaled back in favor of additional NGCV funding, and Chinook F Block II getting axed for a bump in FVL funds)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army has already liquidated much of its MRAP fleet and focused on the MaxxPro.

 

Slowing JLTV procurement aligns with cutting back Bradley and Chinook upgrades to free up funding for the 'big six'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

The Army has already liquidated much of its MRAP fleet and focused on the MaxxPro.

 

Slowing JLTV procurement aligns with cutting back Bradley and Chinook upgrades to free up funding for the 'big six'.

The Big Six, although a welcome change of paradigm and more focus on R&D and production of new kit over overhauls and life extensions of old kit, it's not exactly striking a good balance, from my POV.

 

It's pretty much what the IDF did, but on a grander scale.

We were so focused on constantly upgrading our AFVs and creating new ones, projects easily worth hundreds of millions on a regular basis, that we've neglected the technological improvements of the infantry, who inherently can make similar leaps in equipment-derived capability via much smaller investments (just let's not enter the whole stupid "for 1 X we could buy 200 Y" argument).

It took a long time but now it seems our procurement agency has struck a better balance. The Big Six seems to me like it is one step behind in that regard and it frustrates me. But I'm not familiar with it enough so I could be wrong. Hopefully.

 

 

My only remaining question for now is - Is the JLTV too big to kill? 

(In favor of a cheaper alternative, or for a redesign to fit the army's revamped strategy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 5:24 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

As true as this is, the age is honestly rather cause enough for replacement. The things are slow, maintenance intensive, not particularly stable, and lack some "creature comforts" that have rather proven to be necessary in certain operations (the classic case being no effective AC in desert fighting...). You might be able to get away with a deep overhaul, but likely for the same costs as a newer design.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I understand replacing the HMMWV due to age. It just seems like the JLTV is overkill for what should just be a simple lightweight utility vehicle IMHO. 

Share this post


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

 

xVQYPuD.jpg

Some sort of SHORAD(?) variant on the XM1200 FCS chassis. Any more info would be appreciated

The timeframe seems to match the MTHEL (Nautilus) laser system, if it's really the XM1200 from the FCS.

An M230 and Stinger pack seems like a recent addition though.

When was the picture taken?

Share this post


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

 When was the picture taken?

 

The picture is from a company called Modeled horizons. They do a lot of work for defense contractors, especially BAE Systems. On their site, they refer to it as "CAT" but I couldn't find any more info than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JNT11593 said:

So this is something I've never really thought about, but is the LP-CROWS going to ever work its way onto strykers and HMMWVs?

 

Probably not, having a CROWS-J on an Abrams is also extremely unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.janes.com/article/89156/us-army-eyes-equipping-a-robotic-combat-vehicle-medium-with-a-30-mm-turret?socialmedia=twitter

In the near future, the US Army wants to equip units with a Robotic Combat Vehicle-Medium (RCV-M) outfitted with a 30 mm turret to defeat armoured personnel carriers, trucks, and troops.



In a 7 June announcement, the service unveiled tentative plans to acquire a RCV-M platform to augment the “organic” formation with a direct-fire capability, while also leveraging on-board sensors to help form a common operating picture.

“The RCV-M’s aggressive mobility profile enables it to keep pace with its organic formation during off-road maneuver and movement on improved surfaces,” the service wrote. “Its on-board autonomy package reduces the cognitive burden of the operator while maintaining an aggressive cyber defense posture to maintain both assured control and the trust of the operator.”

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...