2805662

“So IFVs may not be survivable in a future conventional war, and they may be poor value for the likely tasks the ADF will have to perform in the future in the near region.“

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/land-400-is-a-knight-in-shining-armour-really-what-we-need/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily The Strategist&utm_content=Daily The Strategist+CID_e43769539cc22d4a3dafe82240618155&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=LAND 400 Is a knight in shining armour really what we need

Looks like only one contender - Lynx - will physically be preset at the Land Forces trade show in Adelaide next month. 

Update - Athena could be on the floor, too. 

More of the elusive Trophy-equiped Abrams of 1BCT/1st Cav in Poland. 

It’s almost like they don’t want them photographed or something. 

Looking for .pdf of these ...

(generally interesting, anyway)

On 7/21/2018 at 6:23 AM, Serge said:

This theory is a very bad option. 

Heavy forces must work on tracks. With the French deployment in the Baltic area, mobility problems became obvious. A 8x8 can’t follow a Leclerc MBT. 

Any sources/pics for this? Was this VBCI?

The name may be to calm the horses - it’s not a tank, it’s a tank killer. Like the pre-war combat car/tank naming convention. 

6 hours ago, Kal said:

Any update?

 

Industry feedback on the draft timeline is due this month, with an industry brief the day before Land Forces 2018 (first week of September). RFT is due last quarter of this year. Rumour has it there may be a sub-Phase that incorporates an amphibious vehicle in the offing. 

some more on the XM360 and the effect of a muzzle brake. 

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2006/garm/tuesday/smith.pdf

Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept:

Ah, makes sense. Trying to find the Watervleit Arsenal report for this year. It talked about production of XM35 tubes, but would be good to see whether the XM360 tubes were being produced. 

Interesting. Is the pepper pot muzzle device indicative of a 105mm? XM35?

25 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

It also helps clarify this concept art.

 

 

That it does. Nice pic - that vehicle has very clean (but realistic) lines. 

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I don't know which .pdf that page was pulled from for the DARPA MUM-T update.

 

Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. 

That would be excellent - especially with the dimensions!

So, apart from the APS trial pics (US Army & USMC), and the US Army 1BDE/1 Cav pics in Poland, are there any other pics of Trophy fitted floating about?

Hard target at an Iraqi range. 

10 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Not only this

Yep, the Stabilised Commander’s Weapon Station is another indicator (though there are some National Guard tanks with this, too). 

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 I believe 2-3 years ago Jordan took delivery of a squadron of AH-1Z Cobra helicopters free of charge.

I believe they were AH-1S (single engine), not AH-1Z (twin engined, not operated by Israel).

A USMC M1A1 fitted with Trophy:

as seen on @Damian twitter account.

Also here: http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/

“The M1A1 Trophy TD phase is complete. The USMC project is partially funded to procure (48) of (56) systems as a special mission kit for four tank companies.”

If retrofitting HPS to an vehicle currently fitted with torsion bar suspension (Abrams etc.), then you have the possibility of using the now void space to improve under-belly protection, without requiring a belly plate, which has the added benefit of restoring ground clearance. 

Using Morocco’s 2012 notification for 200 x M1A1 (http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/morocco_12-28_0.pdf) with all equipment listed included as a basis, it equates to $USD5.075 million per tank (£3.4m in 2102 £). I don’t see either an Abrams-turret, or complete Abrams as a CR2 upgrade/replacement as necessarily “more expensive” than 200 x Leopard 2A7V.

3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

That would most likely be more expensive than buying off the shelves M1s anyway (and would probably make the tank even more overweight than it already is)

The Germans also proposed them to buy second hand Leopard 2 at some point which would have been cheaper and more effective (from a combat potential PoV) than upgrading their CR2 but it was shot down for pride reasons apparently.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministry-of-defence-mod-german-tank-deal-manufacturer-krauss-maffei-wegmann-leopard-2-tank-fear-a7510681.html

No argument about the expense; this is aimed more at providing a fig leaf of national pride, whilst delivering a system that can leverage someone else’s money in terms of planned, ongoing investment (APS, FCS, up-armouring, TUSK, CROWS-LP, ECM etc.) in both design and large-scale production (I’m looking at you, Leopard 2A7V).  

My proposed Abrams turret option (over any other western turret) is more about providing a useful ammunition load (38 vs. 15 rounds of the Leopard 2) without having to touch the existing hull ammunition stowage, or changing RAC doctrine by adopting an auto-loader (Leclerc, for example). Also, it meets US “spend more” pressure, can be done without a lengthy tender process (FMS), and avoids EU entanglements.

...all of which is moot against no apparent desire by the UK Government to invest seriously in heavy armour. 

Chuckled at the “popped collar” - knew exactly the bit you meant. 

12 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Do they have the same size turret ring? 

🤷🏿‍♂️ No idea. Abrams is 85”/2159mm....the French & Germans seemed to make their demo work.