TokyoMorose

On 1/20/2023 at 3:34 PM, Ramlaen said:

The MPF does not bring an Abrams level logistic tail, they are not going to "light infantry" brigades and the US Army does not have a programmable 120mm HE in service yet.

Unfortunately, it's almost as bad. I need to go and find the powerpoint slide, but the thing is big enough to require M88 ARVs for recovery and HETs to move them around.

On 1/22/2023 at 4:01 AM, Renegade334 said:

 

That's not the point being made - that a 120mm gun would be better for the GDLS MPF because it has access to a wider range of ammunition including programmable rounds like the AMP and combustible propellant cases, which would eliminate if just mitigate the toxic fumes issues the prototypes encountered during testing.

As of yet, there is no 105mm AMP/equivalent available in the US armor panoply or in development -- at least officially.

105mm AMP and a new APFSDS round (tentatively referred to as M900A2) have been discussed as programs in PM MAS presentations. They are programs of record.

I realized it was big... but 42t and taller than Abrams?

What uh, is particularly mobile or light about this thing anymore?

On 12/25/2022 at 8:53 AM, Renegade334 said:

Huh. USAR's still not enthused by autoloaders. 

Out of the blue, it hit me. Is this the "compliance" issue that killed the BAE MPF? That the XM8 is designed entirely around an autoloaded, 2-man turret?

On 10/11/2022 at 9:18 PM, Ramlaen said:

Correct me if I am wrong but the ASCOD 2 uses torsion bar suspension. The MPF, which is not based on the ASCOD or AJAX, uses this

The use of in-arm units is a big step forward... but I'm kind of amazed that GLDS managed to make a design where they had overheating issues. While I'm sure it's not the first vehicle with in-arm suspension to have overheating issues, I've never heard of one.

7 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Suspension overheating problems eh? It would seem ASCOD 2 is showing its colors, again.

11 hours ago, Alzoc said:

What is surprising in this tweet is that they say that they used the gun at a range of only 22 km (and a previous tweet talked about a range of 20+ km). Either the Ukrainians know exactly what they are shooting at and put themselves just out of range, or they are not using the full range of the gun on purpose (either for greater accuracy or to prolong the live of the barrel by reducing the charge needed).

 

DGA also gave more informations on the Caesar sent to Ukraine. Apparently only 6 were sent (for now?) when the initial rumours talked about 10 or 12. Contrary to what was initially suspected, those guns were not taken from the Moroccan order but directly from French army stock (leaving us with only 70 of them for now). It has been however confirmed that the software of the guns has been adapted in order to make it compatible with the Ukrainian artillery management system (meaning that they were being prepared for shipment long before it was announced by Macron).

I think we might have an answer right in that text. What if the Ukrainian Artillery Management system has baked-in planning assumptions for ranges to be used at?

It's a quite and dirty google translation, but it would seem that yet again, ASCOD 42 is pure bone hurting juice when driving. There is something fundamentally wrong with the vehicle.

On 3/13/2022 at 3:50 AM, SH_MM said:

An issue in this discussion is the fact, that there is not clean definition of "ASCOD 2". The name was already used by Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug to distinguish between the Pizarro (ASCOD 1) and the Ulan (ASCOD 2). Later it was used for the ASCOD 35 in comparison to the Pizarro and Ulan. At the same time the Pizarro Fase 2 has been described as ASCOD 2 (specifically by British journalists saying that the Ajax was based on the Pizarro Fase 2), despite being much closer related to the Ulan than the ASCOD 35.

This is a fair point, all of my use of "ASCOD 2" is for the ASCOD 35 development. I get the feeling the Journalists calling Pizarro P2 ASCOD 2 is just simple mistakes, as Pizarro P2 is literally Ulan but with Spanish fittings and a domestic transmission (SG850).

On 3/8/2022 at 5:27 PM, Ramlaen said:

Have either Austria or Spain encountered the issues the British have with their vehicles?

Well no, but Austria and Spain only operate ASCOD Gen 1s (until Castor enters service in Spain) - which were entirely designed by Steyr before GDLS took them over. It's a very solid, if conventional late cold war IFV.

But ASCOD 2 is a near-clean sheet design, and not only has Ajax been a mess but so has VCZAP Castor - the new engineering vehicle the Spanish are buying based on ASCOD 2. Castor is the project parliamentary questions brought up GDLS (as a whole) had used money on that was disbursed as part of the Ajax payments. The track record with ASCOD 2 for both clients deep into the contracts for them (UK's Ajax family and Spain's Castor) have been a complete mess.

Meanwhile, the Sabrah LT for the Philippines on ASCOD 2 chassis has also slipped a few months. It was supposed to be December '21 first deliveries, but now it's "2022" (which we are a quarter through almost) for them. They aren't even full up ASCOD 2s, but just the chassis with turret and outfitting by Elbit. Something stinks at ASCOD 2 land.

On 3/2/2022 at 5:29 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

GDLS isn't going to win because their lobbyists are better, they didn't have to "redo" the Stryker and the issues with the Ajax (made by GDUK) are irrelevant.

Come on Ram, the current Stryker DVH shares basically zero parts with Stryker as originally delivered. The suspension was modified several times and eventually outright replaced, the hull has been modified to the extent of very limited parts compatibility, the powerpack was entirely replaced...

The "regular" stryker to DVH conversion involves taking existing hulls, stripping them basically to the hull itself, modifying the hull to the new spec - and then bolting on the new 6.0 running gear, installing the new powerpack, and all that jazz.  If that's not a "redo" of the thing, than I don't know what is. Virtually nothing is left from the vehicle as originally ordered and designed.

Furthermore, while yes GDUK is doing the work on Ajax - it was the GD global leadership who decided to make the proposal based on ASCOD 2 and the existing ASCOD 2 Spanish supply chain, which is what has caused all of the Ajax's issues; it's not poor work at GDUK that is the problem. There's even statements in the parliamentary questioning that GD as a whole has been spending money sent to them as part of the Ajax program on the global ASCOD 2 portfolio.

3 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

I see GDLS still manages to keep up their impressive DoD relations / DC lobbyist effort.

You'd think after how many times they had to redo the stryker and with their current global scandals it'd change things but nope.

I am curious though, how is a 34.5 tonne, MBT-sized vehicle requiring M88 Hercules wreckers and M1070 HET transporters to be added to the TO&E *more compliant?!?!*. What buzzword did the XM8++ not have?

On 1/28/2022 at 7:11 PM, Hal said:

Not downplaying anything. This is a truck with slightly better than average off road capability, at a relatively low price (because it was adapted from a civilian model). That all it is supposed to be, a truck, a replacement for walking. It does that.

But it's oddly not a truck - a real off-the-shelf SUV or truck would be even cheaper and not have the horrible seats, while not being totally open to the environment.

It's a strange semi-custom job that is more expensive than just buying pure off the shelf machines for low-intensity work, and is awful in doing anything you couldn't reasonably do with a off-the-shelf softroader. They had to give up testing at Yuma due to constant breakdowns and broken parts, and sure it may have passed at bragg's flat woodland course... but so could almost any modern off-the-shelf truck or SUV. Why not just send the military CUCV'd Chevy trailblazers? It's literally the off-the-shelf SUV version of the 31XX chassis that the ISV is built from.

And yes, the fact that a basic truck/SUV is basically going to be a free target for literally anything in a high-intensity conflict shouldn't be surprising nor really a fault of it. But it's this strange "more-than-truck, less-than-HMMWV/JLTV" oddity.

On 1/28/2022 at 12:30 AM, LoooSeR said:

Interesting note - are quadbikes or smaller byggies better in this role? Our VDV tested bunch of those.

SOCOM uses a buggy for the role as well, the GD Flyer - it also competed with the GM offering for the ISV but lost on cost grounds being a clean-sheet vehicle instead of the 90% COTS GM proposal.

I find it endlessly amusing that they are replacing the turret drive, but keeping it hydraulic. Clearly, hydraulic leaks are a required part of the Abrams crew experience™.

On 9/27/2021 at 4:14 PM, 2805662 said:

Manufacture of “major components” of the Mk30-2/ABM to be undertaken by Thales Lithgow. 
 

Hope Rheinmetall has their IP locked down!

Man, the stories I have heard from an Aussie soldier on some of the F88's production "quality" out of Lithgow.

12 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Allegedly the first round which was won by the almighty Royal British Rolling Bunker was launched with engines off. 

Would make sense - the Hyperbar does take quite some time to get up to full temp & pressure, would also explain the rather jerky motion in the first race for the leclerc if the thing was still warming up.

That video amuses me because the LeClerc behaves so oddly - and I don't mean in the fact it lost something it should have had down pat easily.

The thing is braking before it even hits the finish line, and the braking is inconsistent - the driver hits the brakes twice before actually committing to the stop full bore.

Who did they have driving that thing?

So, from the same source that gave me those nice photos of the M1A2C's turret cheek extensions and how they are built-up, I can say that the ballast plates on trophy equipped non-M1A2C tonks are 1.8t and are 152mm thick.

12 hours ago, Sheffield said:

From this article, it appears that the Army had little to no say in this and that it was wholly orchestrated by the PiS party leader Jarosław Kaczyński, even the Prime Minister is opposed to it, so, the deal appears to be entirely political.

 

https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,114884,27334615,abramsy.html#s=BoxOpMT

I had sort of assumed that when I saw how things were being done - no tender, no contests, not even a trial. Generally military brass are going to want to at least run a round of trials to ensure they are getting the best option. A sole-source negotiated-in-backrooms deal is usually not great for procurement.

(And I am of the opinion that had the government stuck to their ludicrous timetables, even running a sham of a competition would have resulted in everyone but Abrams being disqualified - I don't see how the Leo 2 or K2 could be delivered in the numbers wanted as fast as they want them. I even doubt the Abrams can be delivered that quickly, but at least there is a chance there.)

4 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Question: for the Ascalon’s ammo, it is referred to as “telescopic”. Aren’t most (if not all) modern tank gun APFSDS telescoping? Or am I misunderstanding the terminology? 

While many rounds today have the projectile extend partially into the cartridge, a telescoped round has the *entire* projectile in the cartridge - so the round is just a cylinder.

4 hours ago, David Moyes said:

 

Uncomfortable shades of past French "multinational" programs here. You can have a multinational project with them, so long as they are allowed to make all of the core decisions (and coincidentally or not so coincidentally those decisions are often to the benefit of French firms).

19 hours ago, Rico said:

 

Industry reasons are relevant if you can produce all spare parts in Norway.

As Hyundai says they will still produce the core components in Korea which means you can wait a lifetime for spares while waiting to get your powerpack maintained whereas you can do the same for your Leopard 2 engine at dozens of companies or ask your neighbors to borrow some spares.

I think it is smart to push KMW into a position to do local work and involve local companies for assembly, cables and stuff like that.

But in the end military reasons should be more important than industry support.

This is not a real issue, you just have a bigger spare stockpile in-nation, sufficient to last a month or two.

In case of non-WW3 emergencies, air cargo exists. And in a WW3 situation, the Norwegians have far worse things to worry about than how long their local spare K2 parts stockpile would last.

3 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want. 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall. 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside. 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

12 hours ago, alanch90 said:

That´s an ugly turret

IMHO, the updated MCT-30 was far and away the most attractive solution both aesthetically and in silhouette (the CMI and Rafael turrets are so tall!). Either Rafael has some really amazing tech promises or they went really aggressive with pricing.

Updated MCT-30 in the spoiler below for reference

55 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.