Ramlaen Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 Jackvony, Scolopax, Serge and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackvony Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 Laviduce, LoooSeR, VPZ and 4 others 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 Those are some chubby cheeks there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 Such size is definitely not rail-transportable. How they plan to do it? Are the APS modules field-detachable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 Yes. They are. Beer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 20, 2020 Report Share Posted July 20, 2020 UK tech developed at QinetiQ is being used to convert a US Bradley Fighting Vehicle to hybrid-electric power Quote BAE Systems has been awarded a $32 million prototype agreement by the U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) to integrate a Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) system onto a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. HED systems also improve automotive performance and provide drive-by-wire mobility to support autonomy in addition to increase power generation. BAE say that with minor platform modifications, HED technology can be configured for various vehicles including the Bradley, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, the M109A7 self-propelled howitzers, and the family of Multiple Launch Rocket Systems.“QinetiQ is developing the electric cross drive transmission (Modular E-X-Drive), a key component of an HED system for a tracked combat vehicles. The QinetiQ Modular E-X-Drive has been tested and proven in a wide range of tracked vehicles and weight classes over the last decade. The designs have completed extensive lab and vehicle tests, including safety certifications. BAE Systems and QinetiQ have a long-standing relationship in the development of vehicle HED technologies.” https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-tech-being-used-to-trial-hybrid-electric-bradley-fighting-vehicle-in-us/ Clan_Ghost_Bear and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 21, 2020 Report Share Posted July 21, 2020 US Army seeks to compete as OMFV prime, industry unnerved Quote Industry is concerned about a potential US Army plan to bid on, judge, and select its own M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement, and is likening such a measure to a metaphorical self-licking ice cream cone. Ashley John, the public affairs director for the army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, confirmed to Janes on 19 July that the service is exploring options to “leverage its core competencies and compete with industry in the design of a future combat vehicle”. More specifically, she said that the service wanted to use its science and technology community and engineers to “potentially develop” a Bradley replacement vehicle. As a result, interested vendors now have a flurry of questions over the ethics and legality of such a measure. One industry source that closely collaborates with the service and GVSC told Janes https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-seeks-to-compete-as-omfv-prime-industry-unnerved alanch90 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted July 21, 2020 Report Share Posted July 21, 2020 So an industry that has grown way too accustomed to over promising, over budgeting and under delivering is concerned about real competition. You gotta love free enterprise capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 22, 2020 Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 Laviduce and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted July 22, 2020 Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 it's old History channel(IIRC) video about M1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted July 22, 2020 Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 GREYWOLF Brigade First to Receive New Abrams Tanks https://www.dvidshub.net/news/374321/greywolf-brigade-first-receive-new-abrams-tanks +Some nice pics there Laviduce and Scolopax 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted July 22, 2020 Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 On 7/21/2020 at 11:04 AM, alanch90 said: So an industry that has grown way too accustomed to over promising, over budgeting and under delivering is concerned about real competition. You gotta love free enterprise capitalism. IMHO, the army is pressing ahead with requirements that literally nobody thinks can be delivered on, and is so confident they just know better that they are going to have themselves do it. I'm in the camp who thinks the requirements are bogus, and that the army is just fooling itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted July 22, 2020 Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 Just now, TokyoMorose said: IMHO, the army is pressing ahead with requirements that literally nobody thinks can be delivered on, and is so confident they just know better that they are going to have themselves do it. I'm in the camp who thinks the requirements are bogus, and that the army is just fooling itself. While i think that most likely the requirements are delusional , the Army is convinced as always and is doing this just to press the industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 2 hours ago, TokyoMorose said: IMHO, the army is pressing ahead with requirements that literally nobody thinks can be delivered on Which requirement do you feel is too difficult? They dropped the airlift requirement from 2 per C-17 to 1. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 Allegedly an M1A2 hit another M1A2 on July 20th in a training accident resulting in a serious injury of the loader (heavy damage to the hand - possible loss of fingers plus shrapnel to the chest hitting the lungs). According to the article this is a result of a hit by training MPAT round at 2600 meters. Laviduce and Clan_Ghost_Bear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted July 25, 2020 Report Share Posted July 25, 2020 On 7/23/2020 at 7:58 AM, TokyoMorose said: IMHO, the army is pressing ahead with requirements that literally nobody thinks can be delivered on, and is so confident they just know better that they are going to have themselves do it. I'm in the camp who thinks the requirements are bogus, and that the army is just fooling itself. I don't think that is fair. The new approach is much more open and realistic. Except... 2 man crew seems brave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackvony Posted July 26, 2020 Report Share Posted July 26, 2020 M1A2 SEPv3 ranks from Battle Company, 3-8 CAV Clan_Ghost_Bear, alanch90, Laviduce and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 27, 2020 Report Share Posted July 27, 2020 https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/two-men-a-bot-can-ai-help-command-a-tank/ The Army has already field-tested Bradleys modified to operate with a two-soldier crew instead of the usual three, said Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, the director of Army Futures Command’s Cross Functional Team for Next Generation Combat Vehicles. “As we speak,” he told me in an interview last week, “we’ve got those Mission-Enabling Technology Demonstrators, or MET-D, actually maneuvering at Fort Carson, Colorado, as part of the Robotic Combat Vehicle test.” With the benefit of modern automation, Coffman said, those two-soldier crews have proven able to maneuver around obstacles, look out for threats, and engage targets — without being overwhelmed by too many simultaneous demands. “They’re doing that both in simulation and real world at Carson right now,” Coffman told me. alanch90, Jackvony and Clan_Ghost_Bear 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 http://www.usarmygvsc.com/soldier-innovation-workshop-considers-abrams-replacement/ Roshindow's take on fixing distortion: scalemodel on second photo shows design known for couple of years: VPZ, Scolopax, David Moyes and 4 others 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 I can't tell if that sketch portrays a 2 man turret or an unmanned one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 19 minutes ago, alanch90 said: I can't tell if that sketch portrays a 2 man turret or an unmanned one. Looks too big to be unmanned. It appears to be using the same all around sloping armor style the Merkava MK 4 uses. Looks like it has two hatches with one behind the gunners sight and the CITV behind the commanders hatch. An RWS is behind the gunners hatch as well. At least that's what I'm seeing who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 53 minutes ago, Insomnium95 said: Looks too big to be unmanned. It appears to be using the same all around sloping armor style the Merkava MK 4 uses. Looks like it has two hatches with one behind the gunners sight and the CITV behind the commanders hatch. An RWS is behind the gunners hatch as well. At least that's what I'm seeing who knows. Perhaps TC and gunner sit in the turret basket but below the turret ring (ala Black Eagle), giving the possibility of servicing the main gun/autoloader in case of failure and also the possibility for the commander to climb to the turret and keep the situational awareness. I remember that back when T-14 was unveiled, US crewmen said that they prefered to be able to keep the top view from the turret. This was also the impression US Army got from testing the unmanned turret testbed in the 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 I wouldn't get too caught up on concept art, remember the stuff for the T-14? Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, alanch90 said: Perhaps sits in the turret basket but below the turret ring (ala Black Eagle), giving the possibility of servicing the main gun/autoloader in case of failure and also the possibility for the commander to climb to the turret and keep the situational awareness. I remember that back when T-14 was unveiled, US crewmen said that they prefered to be able to keep the top view from the turret. This was also the impression US Army got from testing the unmanned turret testbed in the 80s. It's a good way to save weight. The K2 Black Panther has a similar design as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted August 2, 2020 Report Share Posted August 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: I wouldn't get too caught up on concept art, remember the stuff for the T-14? Of course the concepts never look like the real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.