Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

UK tech developed at QinetiQ is being used to convert a US Bradley Fighting Vehicle to hybrid-electric power

kA1SObB.png
 

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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...