Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. 

 

It also helps clarify this concept art.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experimenting with 2 man crews.

 

Within that, the Army needs $98.6 million to produce three sets of experimental prototypes of an NGCV Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) that will take part in operational experiments for manned-unmanned teaming evaluations and “the applicability of two man crew (2MC) to achieve overmatch in the future fight,” the reprogramming document states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2018 at 8:11 PM, 2805662 said:

 

Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. 

 

Maybe that's because it hasn't been given yet.

 

42 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I swear the NGCV is like 100% identical to the Carmel.

 

Wasn't there a US proposed joint Indo-Israeli-American IFV/AFV project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all, who's excited for a new issue of ARMOR?  No one?

 

I have spent hours going through armor issues from the 40's through the 90's, and have found it a generally entertaining and rewarding experience.  Even as a civilian enthusiast I can find plenty in these old issues that is worth reading.  However, current issues are either far too advanced for a simple person like me to understand, or are just the most obnoxious sort of business-speak nonsense.  

 

For example, the new issue features an exciting article titled "Using Logistics Release Point Meetings to Mitigate Persistent Friction Points in Cavalry Squadron Operation."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2018 at 7:32 AM, 2805662 said:

Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept:

 

5MK6qeE.jpg

 

How can this vehicle be a "tank killer", it has no advantages in protection and firepower over MBT. Just like Russin "Sprut-SD" - it's not a "tank killer" but that's how media calls it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

   Uran 9 should not be used as a scale/show of proper military grade UGV capabilities as company behind it was almost a scam, and there were even arrests of company managers IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256.

 

The support of higher pressures is mentionled for the XM360E1 only; the basic lightweight XM360 seems to be designed to deliver the same performance as the existing M256, but in a vehicle at half the Abrams' weight.

 

XUpYEB_lC9UfGpCqrxnklewSn7s6Z0ZFufzQ510F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

 

Still not enough. The real "tank killers" are ATGMs (because they have real firepower advantage over tanks).

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

×
×
  • Create New...