Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rob89 said:

Rheinmetall's Lynx Kf41 has been disqualified, officially because the producer miss the delivery of the prototype at Aberdeeen by the Oct.1.

 

 

According to the article, they still have a chance to win the final production contract

 

2 hours ago, rob89 said:

Meanwhile GDLS is in the game with a prototype that is completely different (as the same GDLS said) from the prospected solution ... 

 

The General Dynamics vehicle delivered to the army is their final product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rob89 said:

I'm really confused.


Rheinmetall's Lynx Kf41 has been disqualified, officially because the producer miss the delivery of the prototype at Aberdeeen by the Oct.1.


Meanwhile GDLS is in the game with a prototype that is completely different (as the same GDLS said) from the prospected solution ... 

 

What is confusing about GDLS improving their prototype from what was shown a year ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/u-s--army-extends-contract-for-bradley-fighting-vehicle-upgrades

Quote

The U.S. Army has awarded BAE Systems a contract modification worth up to $269 million for continued production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV).

The award for an additional 168 upgraded Bradley A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicles is part of the Army’s combat vehicle modernization strategy and helps ensure force readiness of the Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT).


The Bradley A4 is equipped with an enhanced powertrain that maximizes mobility and increases engine horsepower, providing rapid movement in reaction to combat or other adverse situations. Wide angle Driver’s Vision Enhancer, improved Force XXI Battle Command Bridge and Below (FBCB2) software integration improves friendly and enemy vehicle identification, enhancing situational awareness. The addition of a High Speed Slip Ring, greater network connectivity and Smart Displays that simultaneously display classified and unclassified information also improve situational awareness.


 “The Bradley is one of the most critical vehicles in the Army’s ABCT today because it allows the Army to transport troops to the fight, and provide covering fire to suppress enemy vehicles and troops,” said Scott Davis, vice president of combat vehicle programs for BAE Systems. “Upgrading to the A4 configuration provides soldiers with more power to increase their speed and ability to integrate enhanced technology to ensure they maintain the advantage on the battlefield.”


Previously awarded funding for initial production of 164 Bradley A4 vehicles allowed BAE Systems to begin production. The award of this option brings the total production funding to $578 million. It includes upgrades and associated spares of two Bradley variants: the M2A4 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M7A4 Fire Support Team Vehicle.


BAE Systems is a premiere supplier of combat vehicles to the U.S. military and international customers. The company has an extensive manufacturing network across the United States and continues to invest in it. Work on the program will take place at Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas, and BAE Systems’ facilities in Aiken, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Jose, California; Sterling Heights, Michigan; and York, Pennsylvania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 10:32 PM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

The General Dynamics vehicle delivered to the army is their final product.

How do we know this?  It was not a condition.  If true, then GD are well and truly in the box seat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Any word on GDLS OMFV proposal being at AUSA?

 

Speak of the devil.

 

https://www.gd.com/en/Articles/2019/10/10/general-dynamics-at-ausa-2019

Stryker A1 MCWS: The Stryker A1 Medium Caliber Weapon System is the next generation of the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Dragoon (ICVD), which is currently in theater with the Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe. Featuring a lethal 30mm cannon mounted on a combat-proven Double-V Hull chassis, the Stryker A1 Medium Caliber Weapons Systems was successfully live fired in August 2019. It provides a solution for the Army’s operational need for greater lethality in the Stryker fleet. This low-risk, proven solution is ready to meet the Army’s program timelines.

General-Dynamics-Stryker-A1-MCWS-Cropped

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Journo claiming that General Dynamics will actually have two Strykers at their booth. Possibility that some other stuff was missing from their AUSA announcement? 🤔


Literally just walked past them both. A Dragoon & one with the radar cluster that’s been exhibited over the last couple of years. 
 

Also a new M109 (M1299?), BAE UGV with RWS & the Elbit M113 Carmel demonstrator. 
 

No pics until tomorrow - setup day, today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFV has apparently been renamed IFV23.

https://www.army.mil/futures#org-about

Quote

Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team

Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team (NGCV-CFT) provides requirements oversight in order to quickly close current and future capability gaps, and will deliver premier ground combat vehicles to the Soldier that improve combined arms formation mobility and improve vehicle and Soldier survivability. Manned combat vehicles, along with optionally manned and robotic combat vehicles, will allow combined arms formations to maneuver to positions of advantage, deliver lethal effects, and overwhelm enemy forces by operating at tempos that create multiple dilemmas -- ultimately achieving combat overmatch against our adversaries.

Within the Armored Brigade Combat Teams, the NGCV-CFT is replacing the aging M113 and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and Infantry Fighting Vehicle 2023 (IFV23, formally the OMFV), respectively. We are also providing the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams with a new protected capability, the Mobile Protected Firepower, to apply immediate, lethal and sustained long-range fires to engage armored vehicles, hardened enemy fortifications and dismounted personnel. The NGCV-CFT is also leading the Army's efforts in developing and experimenting with a suite of unmanned Robotic Combat Vehicles (tele-operated, semi-autonomous and autonomous) to enhance our future force's ability to identify and destroy enemy forces.

 

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...