Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Your homework is to come up with a reason for Mexico to do joint military exercises.

The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability.

 

Can you come up with a reason that actually fits Mexico's situation?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1985-12

EBhzax2XsAAuxYZ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBhzax1W4AAwMX2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBhzayOW4AAiFIb?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBhzax2WkAEgRGJ?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBh2ZDOXoAIS3rc?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBh2ZDVXkAE2ve-?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh2ZD9XUAY2jx6?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBh5RcQW4AIQufk?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh5Rc5WwAACF2E?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

some pics photographed separately

Spoiler

EBh7mDaW4AINZR7?format=jpg&name=large

EBh7mC0W4AAKGrH?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh-QC3W4AAHQnm?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh-QDjXUAEzYrJ?format=jpg&name=small

EBh-QEMX4AEgN-5?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh6QznXoAIfk8K?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh6QyNWwAAuTJ0?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh6QyzWwAQ88eR?format=jpg&name=small

 

EBh6Q0hXYAEkuSg?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh7mEFWsAAaupt?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh7mEtW4AEK7zB?format=jpg&name=900x900

EBh-QEpX4AAQBlU?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh6-j2W4AEQ80q?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh6-kUWwBAxd8r?format=jpg&name=small

 

EBh6-k_XoAEkYQS?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh6-luXkAIa0UD?format=jpg&name=small

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1986-01

EBHMFi-WsAA0EQ4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBHMIbvWsAUTchH?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHMPcEXsAEZ6wl?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBHMYggXkAAjQTs?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHO0RWXoAAySBo?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBHO2ayXkAAqgjl?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHO3jMXsAANIvD?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

larger pic of Mowag 8x8 w/Ares 75mm cannon
EBh_7WMXoAAVBLX?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

other version
EBh_7WvXYAE5Wqu?format=jpg&name=4096x409

and more on this vehicle from other sources - 
IDR 1980-01 AUSA article:

EADI_z2XsAENZi4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EADJBq1WsAE7wzC?format=jpg&name=small

and aso leaflet I've stumbled across on Ebay once

EADJPqXXsAAF_w_?format=jpg&name=large

 

EADJXKgW4AEjAIB?format=jpg&name=large

 

larger pic of scalemodel of what would eventually become known as M109A5
EBHQAB4X4AAknn2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

btw, on this photo of M109A5 model one can spot at the background an red-and-black artist's drawing of some tank - also published b/w in Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, but it appeared earlier (and with caption which says it artist drawing of M1 replacement from General Electric) in IDR 1982-02

EBHT_C7W4AUUUCn?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

EBHT_C8W4AA3OMD?format=jpg&name=large


EBHT_C-XkAEcR7u?format=jpg&name=medium

EBHT_C9WwAAZCBK?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

and later, in 2008, journalist from Polish magazine Nowa Technika Wojskowa saw this pic among others used by Klimov's design bureau (responsible for Soviet and Russian gas turbine engines, including tanks), and started guessing whether this pic depicts T-80 replacement or not (NTW 2008-02, article Drogi do nowego rosyjskiego czolgu by Tomasz Szulc)

EBHp3kBWsAA7Sis?format=jpg&name=large

 

article on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1986-12

EBcG-3GWkAArucr?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBcHAeKXkAA0K7E?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcHCAZW4AEMZAL?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcHHIfWsAAna_A?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcKCEYXsAA17cP?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBcKGIhXYAUgf9g?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcKIZUXYAAKGyq?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBcNP_7WkAA9FP-?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcNR1rXoAADYN0?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

some pics photographed separately

Spoiler

EBcUtCMWkAAUt0H?format=jpg&name=large

EBcPC80XkAAn-YH?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPEI7W4AAijNF?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPtSPXYAARNws?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPuPMXsAAOh56?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBcPvHHXoAA3DYU?format=jpg&name=medium

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1987-01

EBVbmEzXYAEegHe?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBVcTVaWwAMGzSf?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBVcUj3W4AAbg3E?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBVcWCbWsAEFZUf?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

larger pic of scalemodel of M1 Abrams-based tank w/ some new turret

EBVgLhGW4AEn_1t?format=jpg&name=4096x409EBVhdiHWsAEuV4I?format=jpg&name=360x360
similar vehicle is well-known from artist's drawing

Spoiler

like this one from some magazine
EBVhgPrX4AEgBT0?format=jpg&name=900x900


and this one from Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, p.250
EBVhkWXWsAEFMS4?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

AUSA 1985

That article mentions the COV.

I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.

 

Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 

 

Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:

OLEG1XW.jpg

TP9mFyk.jpg

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 11:58 PM, Lord_James said:

You must be insane, @XhaxhiEnver; truly. When comparing the cost of a series production, you use a single year’s dollar equivalent, which accounts for in/deflation, because the uncorrected values will indeed skew the final costs. It is a common, accepted practice to use the value of the dollar (or whatever currency) of the first year of production of an item, for all years that the item was produced. Ergo, if you want to compare the unit cost of the M1 over its production run, you would most likely use the value of the M1 in the first year it was produced.

 

Inflation will make the cost higher because THAT’S WHAT INFLATION DOES! It makes the unit monetary value decrease, meaning you need MORE MONEY to pay for the same item. This is why it is imperative to adjust for inflation of goods. 

 

One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction), and that’s certainly not cheap for 7000 vehicles; worker, electric, and materials costs (it would be ridiculous to think contractor, sub-contractor, and other utility and manufacturing costs would not be estimated and included in the report). 

 

I don’t know where you learned to estimate finances, but you should probably ask for your money back. 

 

The cost of a series production, is calculated on procurement prices. Unless you pay for them prior and use a layered contract. Which them would indeed make no difference.

The US did not. It paid for tranches through yearly procurement programs. This meant that the inflation would affect both orders YoY and cost YoY. 

 

Furthermore Inflation doesn't do wonders. It is predictable post-hoc. So basically you can retrace how much the Inflation affected the unit price.


 

Quote

 

One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction),


 

This is simply not true. Ammo, fuel, spares do not go in the unit procurement. They are procured separately because tanks don't break down only once. That's why they enter the cost of use, not the cost of acquisition. Again, the added cost for tooling as calculated in 1982 was roughly 10% added on the Hardware (200K USD). Again, the cost per hour or the M1 ended up being 3/4 times superior to the M60. This isn't due to inflation alone. It is also due to how the tank works. 

 

Last but not least, the 4.2 billion USD FY72 is for 4800 tanks, which still falls short of the 7K target. So...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/raytheon-and-rheinmetall-expand-us-army-omfv-team/

Quote

Raytheon and Rheinmetall have introduced new partner Pratt & Miller Defense into their teaming to offer the Lynx IFV for the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) competition. 

The US-based company will provide engineering analysis for the vehicle being pitched for the OMFV requirement, the selected design for which is scheduled for fielding in 2026 and will replace the Bradley fighting vehicle.

‘Pratt & Miller brings extraordinary engineering experience and expertise to the team to make sure Lynx can withstand the battlefield's harsh conditions,’ Brad Barnard, Raytheon OMFV director, said. 

‘Our troops deserve the safest and most advanced combat vehicle possible, and that's exactly what we will deliver.’

Raytheon and Rheinmetall teamed to offer the Lynx - a tracked armoured vehicle – for OMFV in 2018, which the companies say will be manufactured in the US if selected. 

‘Raytheon and Rheinmetall are assembling a US supply chain for Lynx,’ Matt Warnick, American Rheinmetall Vehicles managing director, said. 

‘Partnering with Pratt & Miller brings us one step closer to building Lynx in the USA.’

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567119520996048896/ - 4 photos of slides from recent presentation on NGCV's RCVs

ECIVd06XUAY_-nk?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

ECIVd01XkAA6X0s?format=jpg&name=large

ECIVd0yWwAUVmee?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECIVd06WkAArQZH?format=jpg&name=large

 

and another one from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567111444783996928/

ECLGATEXYAIYjiv?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

ukBFQqD.jpg

 

xW3ONsL.jpg

 

AbtDOrl.jpg

 

KBPZguu.jpg

 

qN33lJz.jpg

 

ECLGAS3XUAI500Z?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECLGAS-XYAAhAvX?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECLGAS5XoAE57MH?format=jpg&name=large

 

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...