Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

M8 Buford Is Back

Recommended Posts

Kind of random, but I realized I had an old issue of Popular Mechanics I bought back in the nineties with an article on the M8.

It had a picture of the autoloader and referred to it as a scaled down version of FMC's naval autoloader.

pmpPQGZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M8 is nearly a 30 years old plateforme, so ELT may have a few changes in its very design. I would find very strange if it was not the case. 

 

So, if I were the US Army, I would think :

- Any engine improvement means endurance tests.

- Any change to steel quality means balistic tests.

- Band track means both running and structural tiring tests.

- FCS improvement means firing test.

- new welding technique means balistic and wear tests...

The list is longer. So, the US Army won’t skip the intro but will read the full track. ;)

 

And meaby, others contenders will call for new test to provide up to date (and fare) datas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re right. They’re different in the middle. Larger ?

 

you know, the net is not for the « fan boys » effect. It’s like the paint covering new cars in test on roads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



US Army awards Mobile Protected Firepower prototype contracts

17th December 2018 - 23:33 GMT | by Scott Gourley in California

 

The US Army has awarded two Section 804 middle tier acquisition rapid prototyping contracts for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)programme against an aggressive delivery schedule. 

General Dynamic Land Systems and BAE Systems Land & Armamentswere both awarded contracts on 17 December under the full and open, best value competition for integration of mature technologies. Each of the rapid prototyping contract does not exceed $376 million.

‘Currently, the [MPF] capabilities do not exist in our light formations,' offered US Army BGen Ross Coffman, director of the US Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicles (NGCV)Cross Functional Team (CFT), under which the MPF programme falls. 

‘Requirements associated with this will enable US forces to disrupt, breach and breakthrough [enemy] security zones and defensive belts to allow our infantry, men and women, to close with and destroy the enemy on the objective’. 

Each of the two contractors will begin delivering 12 prototype vehicles 14 months from today, with all deliveries to be completed over a four to five month period. Testing of the prototypes is slated to begin 16 months from today. 

Highlighting the aggressive schedule, MG Brian Cummings, programme executive officer, ground combat systems, noted that getting the vehicles into the hands of soldiers will give the CFT ‘a chance to look at different, various ways of using this in our formations’.

David Dopp, project manager, MPF, asserted that the biggest difference in the MPF acquisition plan is that the army’s lack of traditional formal preliminary design review and critical design review meetings.

‘We’ll do the work but we won’t have those formal meetings’, he said. 

‘We will really have minimal development,' characterising the prototype designs as ‘integration of mature technologies’. 

A limited user test is scheduled for fourth quarter of FY21, with a final down-select planned for FY22. Current plans for low rate initial production feature two options, of 26 and 28 vehicles respectively. The US Army’s total acquisition objective is 504 vehicles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet a worthless vehicle that will never actually get airdropped anywhere. Instead they'll just get boated/railroaded to where they need be. Then they're gonna get opened up real bad due to low armor which will necessitate tons of armor packages that will overload the engine/transmission and make it un airdroppable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

MPF isn't supposed to be air droppable in the first place.

 

 

I'm dumb lol, I know for a while they were talking about an air droppable light tank though. Still not really sure if this is a niche the Army really needs (lol armchair general right here). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the survivability of this vehicle.  The Pentagon has tried to kill it like, four times already.  What the hell makes anyone think that ATGMs or 125mm gunfire is going to have any more luck?

 

My bet is on the Griffin being the final nail for BAE's reheated leftovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this competition, the M8 suffers from its advantages : air droppable capability. 

This advantage is the worst drawback to answer a classic request. 

 

The Griffon-2 :

- can carry more ammunitions ;

- have a 4 men crew ;

- can reach 40t growth potential at least. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...