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

[Ramlaen]

The protective cover for the gunners sight is a recent addition.

 

[Ramlaen]

[Karamazov]

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

This is antenna? 

I immediately remembered it

[SH_MM]

Seeing that Damian still keeps posting his crazy theories about the M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP having DU armor in the hull, here is a rather recent document (answer by the NRC to a licence request for storing and using DU armor by General Dynamics):

 

www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15057A184.pdf

 

 

Note that there is no mention of the hull, but the turret is specifically mentioned.

 

Applied for the renewal of the licence on 13th of June 2014, letter dated 16th of December 2014, fully approved on 25th of February 2015.

 

[Ramlaen]

8 hours ago, Karamazov said:

 

This is antenna? 

 

Don't know, I can't tell from that angle if it is a command variant.

 

Although I do see the mystery black cylinder that is also seen on the M1A2C and M2A4.

[Renegade334]

@Ramlaen Not to mention, it also sports the CREW Duke v3 antenna (behind that black cylinder), which suggests they're different (as in, separate) systems.

 

I'm still not convinced it's the Multimodal Hostile Fire Detection System (to be included with Raytheon's Lynx offering), as the top of the sensor array sports a ring of flash-detecting optics: that black cylinder is clearly smooth with no set of apertures...and I don't think it's just a removable protection cap meant to cover the MFHDS when the latter is not in use.

 

 

EDIT: it's certainly one of the new AMPVs, probably the Mission Command variant.

 

 

You can clearly see that antenna pedestal in front of the CREW Duke.

[Ramlaen]

Couple more from that set.

[Serge]

On 10/24/2018 at 8:09 AM, Ramlaen said:

I don’t think it’s an aerial. I can be wrong of course but it looks like more a cable protection. 

 

A French long rang radio exemple :

[Ramlaen]

A/4-68 Armor Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division was reactivated today, meaning the US Army officially has air dropped armor again.

 

 

[FORMATOSE]

I have just some questions regarding the M1A2 SEP  :

• Regarding the SEP v2, what do they exactly mean by upgraded transmission ?
• Why the SEP v1's UAAPU was replaced by 6 Hawker batteries on the SEP v2 ?

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

I have just some questions regarding the M1A2 SEP  :

• Regarding the SEP v2, what do they exactly mean by upgraded transmission ?
• Why the SEP v1's UAAPU was replaced by 6 Hawker batteries on the SEP v2 ?

 

There is a bit of conflicting information about the UAAPU, from what I read the original was a small gas turbine.

 

The development of the M1A2 SEP's UAAPU was stopped and not included in production vehicles.

 

Some units still had M1A2 that were upgraded with it.

 

After which more APU engines were developed.

 

The UAAPU in the M1A2C appears to be a new design.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Ramlaen

[Ramlaen]

[skylancer-3441]

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). 

Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1

884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices.

 

Spoiler

65-ton (59 metric) version of SAIFV, with two-man turret with protection equal to that of hull.



"reduced protection" version - 5-6 tons lighter that first one.

59-ton version with "weapon pod"



6 roadwheel version - apparently one mentioned in Appendix D as 55-ton (50 metric) IFV#4

75mm gun in low-profile turret, 59 tons. Chapter V p.332-333 mentiones that (traditional?) turret was considered - but was dropped as it appeared that vehicle's weight would reach 70 tons (63,5 metric)



Appendix E also mentiones version with all around protection against 81mm CE ammunition, and increased protection against 127mm and 107mm CE, - all that at expense of frontal KE protection (so 115mm projectile was able to penetrate both turret's and hull's frontal armor). No pictures of this one.

 

 

Appendix D - Mobility analisys of IFV task force alternatives (1978-02) has some more information on some variants:



unfortunatelly there are no pictures of this 33-ton IFV#5
 

 

proposal on how to fit more dismoiunts into Bradley (Ch. IV p.73-77)

 

Appendix E - BRL Vulnerability Analysis of the IFV concepts

 

cost figures from Appendices F and B:


things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17):
(there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment)

apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). 

 

 

...
btw, GAO's report  "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23:

and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):

[Xlucine]

1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

 

Picking 2nd percentile troops is getting pretty desperate

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

[Belesarius]

5 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

Welcome to SH!

 

[Serge]

On 10/16/2018 at 3:56 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Sydney J Freedberg, writer for BreakingDefense, shares his views on the NGCV contenders and infers from the talks at AUSA that the Griffin III is the preferred vehicle at the moment.

 

 

He makes some good points.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/

What good points !

Nobody knows the tiniest thing about the Griffin ou the Lynx and everybody is clapping the Griffin ?

The most important : nobody knows about what the US-Army want. 

This is ridiculous 

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Serge said:

What good points !

Nobody knows the tiniest thing about the Griffin ou the Lynx and everybody is clapping the Griffin ?

The most important : nobody knows about what the US-Army want. 

This is ridiculous 

It's not uncommon to be instantly biased for a certain AFV just by how fitting it looks, or aesthetically pleasing it is.

Seems the Griffin just gave a stronger more positive first impression on the relevant observers.

Despite the rigorous tests and evaluations expected for each contender, this is still an important aspect.

 

Personally, I'm also most impressed with the Griffin. 

Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).

 

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

 

I've expressed several times my disappointment in Rheinmetall not installing their ADS (now RAP) on even vehicles they co-developed or fully developed. I stand  by this sentiment again here. Rheinmetall could have made a better impression with their KF41.

[Xoon]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

Not sure how showing a CV90 with a bushmaster 50mm would change anything. The US has already tested the gun on the Bradley. 

And if you thinking about the recoil or similar, the CV90 is capable of fitting the Bofors 57mm gun.

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).

...

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

 

The turret of the Griffin 3 was a mock-up, so you are contradicting yourself quite a bit...

 

[Ramlaen]

29 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Not sure how showing a CV90 with a bushmaster 50mm would change anything. The US has already tested the gun on the Bradley. 

And if you thinking about the recoil or similar, the CV90 is capable of fitting the Bofors 57mm gun.

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

 

The 50mm gun on the Griffin III is not the 35/50mm Bushmaster III. A 35mm armed CV90 would need a modified turret to house the linkless ammo boxes attached to the gun.

[Xoon]

17 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The 50mm gun on the Griffin III is not the 35/50mm Bushmaster III. A 35mm armed CV90 would need a modified turret to house the linkless ammo boxes attached to the gun.

Wasn't one of the big selling points of the Bushmaster III that changing from 35 to 50mm was easy? 

 

Also, I am speaking about the CV90, not the Griffin. 

[Ramlaen]

42 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Wasn't one of the big selling points of the Bushmaster III that changing from 35 to 50mm was easy? 

 

Also, I am speaking about the CV90, not the Griffin. 

 

And I'm speaking about putting the US Army's 50mm gun in a CV90.

[Xoon]

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

 

And I'm speaking about putting the US Army's 50mm gun in a CV90.

Taking the 50mm in the griffin and installing it in the CV90?

[Serge]

41 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Taking the 50mm in the griffin and installing it in the CV90?

This is not possible because the TARDEC artillery solution is very different from the BAE CV’s one. 

With the TARDEC, the linklees feeding system is cohesive with the auto-canon. When the cradle is moving, everything is moving. 

Inside the CV90 turret, you have a supple conveyors wich transfer the ammunitions from the magazine to the chamber.

 

The first solution permit a very high travel course. With the more classic Swedish solution, you are more limited. 

The Tardec drawback is the turret roof which must be raised. 

 

So, the CV90 turret can’t house the TARDEC solution.

 

The only solution to reach 85deg of travel would have been to use a rotating chamber. But it means the use of a CTA canon... wich is not US at all.