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 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...