Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

MRose

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    113

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by MRose

  1. MRose
    Don't really see how that's possible without changing the projectile (and launchers).
  2. MRose
    Maybe 10 years ago. But right now, they're being pretty open about a focus on warfare against a near peer enemy, which could mean anything from hybrid warfare to high intensity warfare, so MaxxPro MRAP trucks are out, and mechanized units are in. APSes are for the hybrid threat. Stationing an ABCT or 2 in Poland goes a long way. (Sorry @LoooSeR) The US Army right now is a lot more focused on rebuilding its long range strike capabilities, than investing in marginal improvements of existing platforms. Too bad LORA doesn't go out to 499km.
  3. MRose
    This is what the Army is planning on spending the real $$$$ on https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/inside-army-futures-command-cross-functional-teams-take-root/
  4. MRose
    But funds for a turret clearly exist. They went with the MCT-30 first, which is fine even though they were already committed to the APS program. Now they spent even more money integrating that same turret on an ACV, which is a bad call IMO. They only have one brigade so far getting that turret. It's still not beyond the point of no return to switch to a more capable one. The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term. EDIT: Come to think of it, it may be best for the US Army to go for just low cost incremental upgrades to the Bradley. As the OMFV gets preferential budgetary treatment, the idea that an AMPV will ever replace a Bradley seems unlikely. Because armor has limited utility in the fight the US Army is now really training for?
  5. MRose
    If my math is halfway accurate the cut is roughly 17% for the Army's JLTV in that time period. I'd imagine we'll get some clarity on what's going in the next couple of days.
  6. MRose
    USNI has the Marines prioritizing the JLTV over the ACV and AAV upgrades https://news.usni.org/2018/09/25/marine-corps-cancels-aav-survivability-upgrade
  7. MRose
    The 1000 NM cannon and FVL aren't going to fund themselves! Wonder what's up with JLTV given how much effort, how important and how good it was supposed?
  8. MRose
    Reprioritizing towards the CFTs priorities. Don't need the AMPV for the fight they have in mind. IDK about the JLTV, Drummond has been making very vague comments about it. NGCV (and RCV) reminds me a lot more of FCS than GCV in its ambitions.
  9. MRose
    @Mighty_Zuk there's a difference between the NGCV CFT and NGCV vehicle itelf.
  10. MRose
    Seems like they're getting serious about investing in the CFT priorities, surprised to see the JLTV cuts though
  11. MRose
    Getting the full sized version?
  12. MRose
    https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/300-shots-rafael-readies-trophy-lite-for-us-stryker/ Article on the APS
  13. MRose
    https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/300-shots-rafael-readies-trophy-lite-for-us-stryker/ I'd imagine this is the version going on the Eitan.
  14. MRose
    Puma was never an option because it didn't meet the squad requirements.
  15. MRose
    Maybe for the RCV. I'd imagine it would be the more conservative bid option in the NGCV-OMFV.
  16. MRose
    Namer was heavily penalized for only having a M2 and not a 30mm, FWIW. It's not unreasonable to believe that if it had the current turret, it would've been graded drastically better and it also met the squad requirement vs the Puma. Just pointing out a missed opportunity for Israeli industry.
  17. MRose
    Optionally manned fighting vehicle, think of a manned Abrams with a remote control Abrams as a wingman. The NGCV was the CFT. What was the "NGCV," they made the "NGCV-OMFV"
  18. MRose
    https://www.army.mil/article/80185/The_Desert_Heats_Up_as_GCV_Kicks_Off_Non_Developmental_Vehicle__NDV__Assessments/ Not just the CBO
  19. MRose
    That is a pretty widely agreed with opinion on this forum. IDK, I'd think he'd fit in quite well around here. The reason why I felt the need to post was he has industry contacts a decent bit of access. Apparently, they think he has pull in the UK.
  20. MRose
    The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively? My bad you were referring to the CFT.
  21. MRose
    Not sure if he has an inside track or this is a prediction
  22. MRose
    Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won. AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.
  23. MRose
    That'd be the role of AF and rocket artillery, probably. Even in the video you posted the artillery was behind the C4 post. The A6 and A7 were piecemeal upgrades because the XM2001 and NLOS-C never came to fruition, I'd be highly surprised in 10 years if they wasn't a replacement program, especially when you get into HE stuff. The AMPV was because the NGCV failed, which I'm sure you're aware of the details, and the AMPV is no spring chicken. We'll probably get something based off the other replacement programs and highly robotized.
  24. MRose
    At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells. Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years. I'd imagine that the US will be looking at an operating concept like this, since the M109 is old as shit and there's no need to follow that closely to armor if you have a 50+ km range.
  25. MRose
    Might be an interesting program if the IDF fields a RAP, so they can do fire support from Israel proper. If you can hit 100km out (lol) without having to worry about any of the upside of tracks, then that's a pretty big win.
×
×
  • Create New...