Mighty_Zuk Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Ramlaen said: Someone found a picture from when CMI’s turret was tested on a Stryker. Seen it. Not impressed. It's quite oversized. Looks modern and all, but CMI seem to not care very much about the protective capabilities of their products. At least to me. Even with Kongsberg's turret they got a very tall vehicle, and it's not even a large turret. I still think it is pointless to test a new turret without at least integrating an APS to it. Be it a Trophy or Iron Fist or whatever they choose (just not that god awful Iron Curtain). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 I don’t know companies uninterested in producing for customers. I may be wrong but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Xlucine said: Bit early to be flogged as surplus, surely? HMMWV's are turning up, why not first gen M1 APU's? (or the ones from late M60's?). If you check the auctions there is all kinds of fairly recent material turning up, so it makes me wonder where the "old" ones are going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted May 18, 2018 Report Share Posted May 18, 2018 Ramlaen, Laviduce and Scolopax 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 18, 2018 Report Share Posted May 18, 2018 A little more info on the Stryker with a CMI turret. Quote The press service of the US Army announced on 17 May that the Fort Benning hosted a live-fire demonstration of a new Stryker weapon’s system. According to a statement, the upgraded Stryker armored fighting vehicle equipped with new medium calibre turret has demonstrated its capacity during a live-fire event held at the Fort Benning in Georgia. “Tuesday Fort Benning hosted a live-fire demonstration of a new Stryker weapon’s system designed to increase the accuracy and lethality of the Stryker.” said in a statement. The U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) in cooperation with, the CMI Defence developed new variant of Stryker armored fighting vehicle armored with medium caliber turret. The turret system provides a cutting edge situational-based fire control system as well as the XM813, the US Army’s linkless 30mm medium caliber weapon system, currently to be fielded as part of the Stryker ONS. This system has the capability, once tested, to be used in multiple future US Army programs. Belesarius and Serge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 18, 2018 Report Share Posted May 18, 2018 Another article on it and some video. http://www.wtvm.com/clip/14351329/live-fire-demonstration-of-new-weapon-system-performed-at-ft-benning Note that the turret is manned. Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 More and xbox hueg versions here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Ramlaen said: More and xbox hueg versions here. Are they *trying* to raise the center of gravity to somewhere approximating lunar orbit? This looks to be taller than the MGS mount and we all know the amazing stability that vehicle had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said: Are they *trying* to raise the center of gravity to somewhere approximating lunar orbit? This looks to be taller than the MGS mount and we all know the amazing stability that vehicle had. The MGS did not have stability issues. And just in case, yes it had no problems firing to the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Well, compared to a sports car, every AFV has stability issues. It's just a question of how bad they are. That_Baka 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: The MGS did not have stability issues. And just in case, yes it had no problems firing to the side. I know that it wasn't in danger of rolling over every time it looked sideways, but did have issues with smoothness over undulating terrain and had a more severe side-slope limit. Strykers always seemed top heavy to me, and this just seems to make the problem a lot worse than the alternative 30mm options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 So are newer Stryker dragoons going to be equipped with this turret, or was it only used trial testing? I'm confused. The thing certainly doesn't add looks to the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Scolopax said: So are newer Stryker dragoons going to be equipped with this turret, or was it only used trial testing? I'm confused. The thing certainly doesn't add looks to the vehicle. Dragoons are the result of an urgent operational needs statement (ONS) for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment which is stationed in Germany. A “we need bigger teeth, what can we get quickly”, and the Kongsberg MCT-30 turret + XM813 gun was such a thing. The Army has decided the Stryker fleet as a whole needs bigger teeth (Stryker Lethality ECP), and since there isn’t the ONS rush they are looking at their options. If you remember about a year ago the Army put out an RFI that they were looking for a turret with additional capability than what is currently on the Dragoon. And just recently announced an industry day for vendors to make presentations. As for the CMI turret, it didn’t originate from the Stryker Lethality ECP (see video) but it fits what the Army is looking for. Its selection isn’t a done deal but I think it has a lot of weight behind it, especially if the Army wants to put it on other vehicles as well. Collimatrix and Laviduce 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 I know I'm just a broken record at this point, on this issue, but it baffles me how can they in all seriousness miss this amazing and one time opportunity to unify the APS and turret projects into one. It can save a great deal of money. These guys can spare a ton more money to dump on projects than most other countries (except KSA) but even they have serious budget issues. AND it actually increases lethality not because it lets the Stryker live another day if it's targeted with some ATGM or ATR, but because the Stryker is so squishy that it pretty much must have an HFD (Hostile Fire Detection). Why is it only a priority for the Abrams ECP? God knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 Is the XM813 gun different to the Mk44 that’s used by the US Navy (& presumably fitted to the Dragoon)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, 2805662 said: Is the XM813 gun different to the Mk44 that’s used by the US Navy (& presumably fitted to the Dragoon)? The XM813 is a variant of the Mk44 with a slightly longer barrel, dual recoil system and a linkless ammunition feed from Meggitt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 And externally also a different thermal sleeve. Correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: And externally also a different thermal sleeve. Correct? The bumps from the recoil system at the base of the barrel on the XM813? Edited May 19, 2018 by Ramlaen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 37 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: The bumps from the recoil system at the base of the barrel on the XM813? No, these aren't unique to the XM813, they existed on the Bushmaster II in that configuration, I believe, for quite some time. I'm talking about the thick cover around the entire barrel that didn't exist on the standard Bushmaster II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 19, 2018 Report Share Posted May 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: No, these aren't unique to the XM813, they existed on the Bushmaster II in that configuration, I believe, for quite some time. I'm talking about the thick cover around the entire barrel that didn't exist on the standard Bushmaster II. Off the top of my head the Mk44’s used by the USAF and USN have the sleeve, as do CV90-30’s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 On 5/20/2018 at 12:20 AM, Ramlaen said: The XM813 is a variant of the Mk44 with a slightly longer barrel, dual recoil system and a linkless ammunition feed from Meggitt. So, from a product qualification/safety & suitability for service perspective, a new gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, 2805662 said: So, from a product qualification/safety & suitability for service perspective, a new gun. Presumably the ammo doesn't need to be re-qualified, surely that saves some time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 5 hours ago, 2805662 said: So, from a product qualification/safety & suitability for service perspective, a new gun. Hence the X, it was created for the now dead FCS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Collimatrix said: Presumably the ammo doesn't need to be re-qualified, surely that saves some time? I’m not overly familiar with the process, but wouldn’t qualifying the various ammunition in the XM813 gun be part of qualifying the gun itself? My presumption is that it won’t be fully type classified until the Mk310 airburst round is in service. Edited May 22, 2018 by Ramlaen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 I’ve only seen S3 testing done with small arms. Have an agreed number of natures of ammunition tested a “qualified” for Initial Materiel Release (IMR)/Initial Operating Capability (IOC), then do the rest to get to FMR/FOC. So, in the case of a new rifle, you could have ball and blank at IMR/IOC, then reduced range training ammunition, frangible ammunition, tracer, armour piercing, and simunition by IMR/FMR. Way more complicated for mounted systems, especially when considering recoil & feed systems. I would’ve thought using the Mk44 off the shelf would’ve been lower risk, but that’s just a gut feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.