Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Clan_Ghost_Bear

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Clan_Ghost_Bear

  1. If GDLS was able to meet it, then how is the problem with the requirement set and not poor performance on behalf of the other contractors?
  2. No idea why, with several large orders in play, they haven't built more than just the one prototype.
  3. Damn. F for the Lynx https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/
  4. It's likely related to the Griffin, but some news outlets are indicating that it's something they've not shown publicly yet- probably a "Griffin IV". https://www.businessinsider.com/defense-contractors-submit-bids-for-army-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicle-2019-10
  5. https://insidedefense.com/insider/gdls-announces-omfv-submission GDLS entered the Griffin III, no surprises. Was hoping to see 1-2 more entries. Edit- Some publications are indicating that the GDLS bid was not the Griffin III, but rather an iteration or possibly a new vehicle entirely.
  6. Textron will manufacture the KF-41, if it wins the competition. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raytheon-rheinmetall-land-systems-selects-us-manufacturer-for-army-combat-vehicle-competition-300927847.html
  7. So the OMFV bids are due next Tuesday. How long will it take after that for us to find out what they are?
  8. Not terribly important, but it appears that the Abrams Replacement is now called the Optionally manned tank.
  9. I'm assuming it's China he was spying for?
  10. A collection of docs overviewing some plans for the US army moonbase, including what weapons they were going to use for defense. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a047426.pdf
  11. You're kind of moving the goalposts, though. You originally said that the US never mounted an autoloader to a tank because of fears over mechanical failure.
  12. Several US designs have featured autoloaders, most notably the M8 Ridgeway, which was type-classified before being budgeted out. The only thing we really know about the Abrams replacement project for now is that GDLS has floated the idea of a 55 ton tank with a variety of different turrets that can be exchanged. https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/land/special-report-army-analyzes-detailed-plans-for-future-tank-McrsL3rfUEKEkhJDJ3Lm0Q/
  13. https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2019/07/29/replacing-the-bradley/ General Coffman mentions "at least 5" companies are providing something for OMFV. We know about Raytheon, GDLS, and Hanwha so far...
  14. The M109A7 with the ERCA and Auto-loader is to be designated XM1299: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Musgrave.pdf
  15. The variant of the Abrams for Taiwan, Previously known as the M1A2X, is now the M1A2T: https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/taipei-economic-and-cultural-representative-office-united-states-tecro-m1a2t-abrams
  16. Any reason that the Borsuk IFV wasn't considered for this role? Having the tank destroyer and IFV on the same basic platform seems like the best idea.
  17. I think they need to get rid of the PT-91 and T-72M1s before reserving any of their Leopards.
×
×
  • Create New...