MRose
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by MRose
-
-
3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:55 minutes ago, MRose said:
Because armor has limited utility in the fight the US Army is now really training for?
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.
-
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 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:4 hours ago, N-L-M said:
Cost. Same as with the Abrams, there are a lot of vehicles in service, and the budget isn't infinite, and therefore low-cost upgrades are desired. Low cost implies minimal changes in structure and fittings. Brand-new turrets with built-in APS are quite a bit more expensive than APS upgrade packages, and usually involve longer lead times, not a good thing for the current European focus.
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?
-
56 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:1 hour ago, MRose said:
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?
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.
-
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
-
10 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
Looking at the FY19 budget request, the 2020 to 2023 numbers for (you can guesstimate how much 2024 would add in the FY20 budget request).
Bradley A4 = ~$1.9 billion
AMPV = ~$2.5 billion
JLTV = ~$4.9 billion
The AMPV and JLTV cuts are not small but aren't substantial relative to the overall procurement plan.
The Bradley A4 on the other hand takes a substantial hit but is not kill after all.
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?
-
49 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:
But hey I'll just repeat what I said on AW forums. Big Army is gonna cuttoff/Cancel all these developed and basically ready vehicles in favor of sinking billions into some fancy new projects. That is said projects will get canned without a single serial vehicle being made flushing those billions of $$$$ down the toilet. Remember the GCV anyone?
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.
-
@Mighty_Zuk there's a difference between the NGCV CFT and NGCV vehicle itelf.
-
32 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
Wow it looks like the Army really does intend to cut off the Bradley and AMPV in FY2020.
https://about.bgov.com/blog/army-mulls-31-6-billion-shift-armor-copters-war-plan/
Seems like they're getting serious about investing in the CFT priorities, surprised to see the JLTV cuts though
-
15 minutes ago, VPZ said:
No.
Getting the full sized version?
-
-
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.
-
Puma was never an option because it didn't meet the squad requirements.
-
Maybe for the RCV. I'd imagine it would be the more conservative bid option in the NGCV-OMFV.
-
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.
-
Just now, Ramlaen said:35 minutes ago, Karamazov said:
can you elaborate on these projects?
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"
-
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.
QuoteLast week, the U.S. Army began operational assessments of existing combat vehicles to validate capabilities against requirements for a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The effort, known as the Non-Developmental Vehicle, or NDV, Assessments will take place on the border of Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M.
The assessments are being conducted on domestic vehicles -- the M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Double V-Hull, and a Turretless Bradley -- as well as the Israeli Namer and Swedish CV-9035, both international vehicles.
The NDVs included in the assessments feature a wide range of unique capabilities and attributes, which will allow the Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of multiple configurations and families of vehicles to better understand requirements achievability.
Not just the CBO
-
4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
Drummond likes to theorycraft.
2 hours ago, Belesarius said:3 hours ago, N-L-M said:Drummond is a hack.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:6 hours ago, MRose said:
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.
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.
-
Not sure if he has an inside track or this is a prediction
-
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
The NGCV did not fail in any way.
Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces.
It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value.
That'd be the role of AF and rocket artillery, probably. Even in the video you posted the artillery was behind the C4 post.
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name.
The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.
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.
-
48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:5 hours ago, MRose said:
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.
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.
-
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.
Israeli AFVs
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
Don't really see how that's possible without changing the projectile (and launchers).