Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/15/2021 at 11:58 PM, N-L-M said:

but none have reached FUE or IOC milestones yet.

Yes, really the question I was asking - pretty sure it is "contracted" for Australia too - is it in service anywhere?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DIADES said:

Yes, really the question I was asking - pretty sure it is "contracted" for Australia too - is it in service anywhere?

 

To my knowledge, not in active service yet anywhere.

The more cynical amongst us would say that means it's still vaporware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Damian's wet dream come true if this actually happens: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/07/09/poland-could-purchase-m1-abrams-tanks-from-us/

 

It's probably worse news for Hyundai Rotem than KMW, though, since a significant contract like this one would have given the former an important foothold in the European tank market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Polish buy of SEPv3 I realized I had not been keeping up with Abrams upgrades.

 

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2020/07-July/08-Jul-2020/FBO-05712644.htm

Spoiler

The Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) Belvoir is conducting market research on behalf of the US Army Product Manager Ground Sensors, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10. The purpose of this Market Research is to identify potential sources that have the skills, experience, knowledge, and capabilities required to manufacture and deliver Third Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR) B-Kits under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Rate Production (FRP) contracts.� The 3GEN FLIR program is currently in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase of the Acquisition Life Cycle.� Upon the completion of the EMD Phase and entrance into the Production and Deployment Phase, the US Army plans to award an LRIP contract for 3GEN FLIR B-Kits.� The purpose of the LRIP contract is to establish an initial production base for 3GEN FLIR B-Kits and permit an orderly increase in the production rates leading to FRP. During LRIP, the US Army plans to procure approximately 400 3GEN FLIR B-Kits over a 2 year period.� Upon completion of Operational Test and Evaluation, the US Army plans to procure over 9,000 B-Kits during FRP.����� � The 3GEN FLIR B-Kit comprises a set of common assemblies, including the Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB) (provided as Government Furnished Property (GFP), optics (afocal, imager), and circuit card assemblies (CCAs). The B-Kit optics collect radiation in the Mid-Wave (MW) and Long-Wave (LW) infrared bands across four fields of view and focuses it onto a staring Focal Plane Array housed in the DCB.� The B-Kit components are intended to be interchangeable Shop Replaceable Units to maximize economies of scale similar to the 2nd GEN FLIR (2GF) B-Kit.� The 3GEN FLIR B-Kit provides the ability to detect threats at greater distances under a full spectrum of conflict and battlefield conditions. 3GEN FLIR enhances the platform's effectiveness and survivability by providing greater situational awareness promoting combat effectiveness and reducing fratricide.�� The 3GEN FLIR B-Kit will replace the legacy 2GF B-Kit and Thermal Receiver Unit (TRU) on the Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) V4.� The 3GEN FLIR B-Kit is designed to fit and function while subjected to the thermal, vibration, and shock environments for the M1A2 SEPv4 Gunner�s Primary Sight (GPS) and Commander�s Primary Sight (CPS).� For the GPS configuration only, the B-Kit is integrated into the TRU as a sub-assembly which includes a Personality Module CCA, Electromagnetic Interference Filter, afocal guard, and electrical flexes mounted in the TRU mechanical bench.���� The TRU, B-Kit sub-assemblies, electronic modules, and the DCB, defined under RFI # W909MY-20-R-C026, will be integrated on host platforms to compose an Improved FLIR sensor. The B-Kit provider will be responsible for integrating the GFP DCB into their B-Kit design. The DCB will be provided as GFP to the B-Kit provider for final integration and testing. The B-Kit and TRU components are currently defined by the following technical documents: a. MIL-PRF-A3347042 - 3GEN FLIR B-Kit Performance Specification b. MIL-PRF-A3347952 - CPS FDE Specification c. MIL-PRF-A3347053 - Performance Specification For The 3GEN FLIR Thermal Receiver Unit (TRU) d. MIL-PRF-A3347058 - Classified 3GEN FLIR B-Kit Performance Specification e. A3347045 - 3GEN FLIR Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB) Mechanical Drawing f. A3315467 - CPS FLIR Design Envelope Drawing g. A3347049 - 3GEN FLIR B-Kit Interface Control Document h. A3347070 - Interface Control Document For The 3GEN FLIR Thermal Receiver Unit (TRU) i. A3381780 - Interface Control Drawing, Thermal Receiver Unit, 3GEN FLIR j. A3347043 - Performance Specification for the DCB k. A3347044 - DCB Interface Control Document (ICD) The documents listed above are Distribution D restricted. The documents are authorized for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. DoD contractors only. These documents also contain technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979 (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401 et seq.), as amended. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. These documents will be disseminated in accordance with provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25. In order to be considered technically responsive, sources must have a fully qualified B-Kit and TRU that has either completed the final System Verification Review (SVR) and Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) or where the supplier can demonstrate with data that their design meets all of the requirements in the technical documents defined above.� Sources must be willing to provide these results, if requested, to verify that the Contractor�s B-Kit and TRU functional baseline meet the requirements as defined by the B-Kit and TRU Performance Specifications, ICDs and Mechanical Drawings. Companies or organizations may request copies of these documents by providing their Point of Contact information listed below to Sharon Minor at Sharon.R.Minor.civ@mail.mil and must clearly state if and how they meet the conditions under which they can receive the documents referenced above. In addition, companies requesting the above information must register for an account with an internet accessible portal known as the Corporate Management System Online (CMS II). Registrants will access the CMS II website (https://www.mycmsportal.com) and follow instructions to complete registration. Documents are currently available for viewing in the CMS II under the 3GEN FLIR folder so the registrants must specifically request access to only the 3GEN FLIR folder. Access to the 3GEN FLIR folder documents will only be granted upon verification that criteria dictated by Distribution D and export control restrictions are met by registered companies or organizations. Foreign participation is excluded. SECRET Clearance, at a minimum, is required. No classified information will be provided as part of this RFI, however, in the event of any subsequent Request for Proposal or Request for Quotation, classified information may become part of that solicitation and will be required as part of any resulting contract. Sources will be required to complete an abbreviated design review prior to manufacturing to demonstrate the design meets stated performance requirements within cost, schedule, and risk.�� Sources responding to this Request for Information (RFI) are requested to provide answers to the following questions with as much detailed information as possible: 1. Brief summary of the company Company Information Company Name: Company CAGE Code: Company DUNS Number. If your Company holds a GSA Schedule contract (541 or other), please provide the Schedule number Company: Address Company Phone # Company email: Company Representative and Business Title: Company Socioeconomic Classification -- (Small Business (SB), (8)(a), Woman-Owned (WOSB), Economically-Disadvantaged Women-Owned (EDWOSB), Veteran-Owned and Operated(VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned, (SDVOSB), or Historically Underutilized Small Business-Zone (HUBZone), Historically Black College and Universities/ Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)) 2. Describe plans to have a Government qualified B-Kit by the time of LRIP award and under what contract(s) the work was performed 3.� Describe capability to build and test a production representative B-Kit in accordance with the technical documents listed above. 4. Describe an execution plan for producing first articles, conduct first article test, and enter production. At a minimum the plan should include: a. A detailed timeline from theoretical contract award to delivery of LRIP items.� Within the timeline, please include major milestones of first articles, contractor qualification testing, and transition to production.�� b. Any major capital purchases, key tests, engineering, and documentation required to produce requested items.� c. Any Government Furnished Equipment, Government assisted testing, or Government facilities required.� d. A risk assessment for each item your company believes they can produce. e. Ramp rate and maximum monthly capacity your company believes they can produce. f. Estimated lead time for new orders after qualification. g. Rough order of Magnitude (ROM) costs for Non-Recurring tasks to set up and qualify first article.�� Please separate cost estimates by major milestones, key events, and key equipment purchases.� 5. Identify sources of supply for any components or assemblies for which you are likely to subcontract production. Standard off the shelf components, such as catalog items, do not need to be addressed. a. What are the supplies being subcontracted? b. Will any SBs be the supplier, if so what percentage will be supplied by SBs? 6. Will any of your manufacturing, assembly, or engineering be accomplished outside the USA?� If so, please provide details on how you will keep this program International Trade in Arms Regulations compliant. 7. Describe your company�s approach to manage and mitigate obsolescence. At a minimum include the following: a. Obsolescence tracking and industry monitoring b. Assessment if the current design is producible without additional design work c. Potential issues ordering long lead or custom items d. Capability to redesign out obsolete components and produce and qualify a replacement item. 8.� Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) unit cost of each item which you wish to produce at the below quantity range bins.� If separate Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs are required, as per question 6 please provide an estimated cost for the NRE broken down into what your company believes are logical decision points from the execution plan. If NRE is to be amortized across a buy it may be included here with explanation. a. 10-25 b. 26-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200 e. 200+ 9. Is your company planning on business arrangements with other companies? If so, please advise of the process used in selecting members. 10. Please provide details regarding proposed joint ventures, teaming arrangements, strategic alliances, and/or other business arrangements to satisfy these requirements. Offerors are encouraged to identify teams, indicating each team member's size based upon the NAICS code of the work that the team member may be doing. 11. What are the core competencies of your employees that would support these requirements? Also, please provide the total number of individuals currently employed by your company that are capable of supporting the requirements. 12. Does your company have a SECRET facility or access to one? 13. Do all of the employees that would support this requirement have a security clearance? If not, what percentage of employees that will be involved in this effort, have a security clearance? 14. Please provide your current facility size to include storage capabilities. 15. Discuss existing production capacity. If you do not currently have a production line what quantities are required to start one and keep it running. Additionally, what minimum quantities per year are necessary to maintain the industrial base? 16. Does your firm possess an approved Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) accounting system? QUESTIONS 17 - 19 ONLY APPLY TO THE SMALL BUSINESS RESPONDENTS: In addition to the above, small businesses responding should provide the following information: 17. If you identify your company as a Small Business or any of the Small Business subcategories above, then is your company interested in being a prime on this contract? If you are a small business and plan to prime f so please inform how you will meet the limitations on subcontracting Clause 52.219-14. 18. Under the current SB size standard, do you anticipate your company remaining a small business for at least the next three years, under the stated NAICS code 334511? �The Government will use this information to assist in determining if this effort is eligible as a small business set aside. 19. If you are a small business, can your company sustain if not paid for 90 calendar days? 20. The Government requests that interested parties with the capabilities to meet the above requirements should electronically submit White Papers of not more than twenty (20) pages, 8.5"" x 11"" paper, 12-point, Times New Roman font, with a minimum of one (1) inch margins all around. Responses to Small Business Questions 20 thru 24 are not counted in the above stated twenty (20) page limitation. Any information submitted by respondents to this sources sought notice is totally voluntary and at no cost to the Government. This information will help the Government form its acquisition strategy. All information received in response to this sources sought synopsis that is marked ""Proprietary"" will be handled accordingly. Responses will not be returned nor will receipt be confirmed. No solicitation exists; therefore, do not request a copy of a solicitation. 21. Please provide the following Point of Contact information on all responses: Responses are due no later than 3:00 PM EST (local time at Fort Belvoir, VA) on 06 August 2020. Email responses should not exceed 5 Megabytes (MB). Responses received after this date and time may not be reviewed. �Send responses electronically to: Michael Sampson, Contract Specialist, email: michael.sampson18.civ@mail.mil Sabin A. Joseph, Contracting Officer, email: sabin.a.joseph.civ@mail.mil Sharon Minor, PM GS, 3GEN FLIR COR, email: Sharon.R.Minor.civ@mail.mil Contracting Office Address: Army Contracting Command, APG-Fort Belvoir 10205 Burbeck Road, Bldg 362 Fort Belvoir VA 22060-5811

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://insidedefense.com/insider/general-dynamics-wins-contract-abrams-sepv4-additions

 

Quote

 

General Dynamics Land Systems will add new training software and cybersecurity capabilities to the next generation of the M1 Abrams main battle tank under a contract the Army announced Feb. 19.

The Army will pay GDLS $25 million "to incorporate the Abrams Platform Embedded Training System Gate-To-Live-Fire capabilities and fault insertion language" into the Abrams M1A2 SEPv4, the announcement stated.

"This software update provides the opportunity to increase virtual opportunistic training capability for Abrams tank crews while reducing dependency on the Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) as the primary provider of synthetic training in" Armored Brigade Combat Teams, Ashley John, a spokeswoman for the Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems, wrote in an email to Inside Defense.

In addition, the contract includes "additional cybersecurity capabilities and replacement of the Loader's Portable Multifunction Display with the Mounted Family of Computing Systems tablet" for the SEPv4, according to the announcement.

 

 

https://www.oasis-ae.com/embedded-training

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2509592/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came across a document on the LV100 engine which has a tidbit on the ASM program:

https://booksc.eu/book/70724131/75edc1

Apparently, Teledyne ended up winning and producing a vehicle, though the image quality isn't great.

 

nmFh0XA.png

Is there any more info/photographs of this thing out there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Clan_Ghost_Bear
Original link no longer worked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Fcvh/d4Q66xNLH/ATR-EDS/ 

 

Also, JIDR 1996-02 apparently has 3-page article on the subject, but RSL does not have it.

 

Upd: Andrei_bt has this article, translated into Russian
http://btvt.info/5library/electr_usa.htm

 

Earlier issues of JIDR and of other magazines from 1994-1996 should have something too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the fantastic opportunity to PMCS, boresight, and road test a M1A2 SEPv3 from 4-9 CAV at Ft. Hood today.

 

UMNgMq0.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/X0GEL89.mp4

https://i.imgur.com/h0McxcP.mp4

 

Many images:

Spoiler

Frontal armor: 

DYoNVYV.jpg

Side skirt:nVaRYfx.jpg

Dat booty:ChD70ix.jpg

Turret serial number:yqi4Ncz.jpg

Gunner and Commander seats:yBRdaKX.jpg

Loader's new display aka Abrams IPad (its removable):xSk76RF.jpg

Back deck opened up:

cXyfL5b.jpg

King of the world:gKi9frQ.jpg

Periscope: lCNmSpr.jpg

Django, love that movie:m8cIu8G.jpg

Some photos on the road:UHxja3z.jpg

RVOMLwP.jpg

k9WnBu5.jpgS7tg9C6.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I can confirm the photo I posted previously that the turret weight of the SEPv3 31.5 tons (28.6 metric tons). I have a photo of the name plate but I haven't removed the serial numbers to upload it. 

 

I also made an extremely rough estimation of the turret armor LOS using my boot and then measuring my boot after (I didn't have a measuring tape on the tank nor did I want to piss off the crew). Using this very rough method I found the armor to be at least 1150mm LOS including the backplate. 

 

I may be able to get back on a SEPv3 next Monday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...