Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

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

Recoil system of the M256:  


https://defence-blog.com/army/jltv-deemed-not-operationally-suitable-in-a-gao-report.html

 

Quote

“The Army and Marine Corps recently concluded operational testing for JLTV and found the vehicles to be survivable for the crew and effective for small combat and transport missions,” the GAO said in its 17th annual survey of defense acquisitions and pointing that: “but not operationally suitable because of their high maintenance needs, low reliability, training and manual deficiencies, and safety shortcomings.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All these issues with basically every major procurement program so far give me some doubts.

  1. Is this abundance of reports of deficiencies/issues, a result of unparalleled transparency within the procurement system? Or is the procurement not nearly streamlined enough to cope with major projects anymore?
  2. Is the Futures Command supposed to help streamline these processes? And if so, then by what degree?
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

GAO rating something not operationally suitable isn't something to take at face value. Much of their criticisms have already been addressed.

 

 

Yeah, I not saying this is the worst thing ever and it's a complete failure. I am genuinely curious though how much development/R&D cost have gone into this thing regardless. Issues are bound to come up when procuring any new piece of equipment. Plus I'm sure everyone here already knows about the mess that generally is U.S. Military procurement so no need to beat that dead horse. 

 

Armchair general pants on: I don't really understand the point of this vehicle......

Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of groups like GAO is specifically to be as critical as humanly possible. A hypothetical issue like a poor service life on a tire, while not impeding the function of a vehicle, can have it stated to be "not operationally suitable".

 

The only pieces of equipment that are "fully operationally suitable" have either been through decades of use & refinement... or only exist on powerpoint presentations. Poor training & manuals, even if legit criticisms, are hardly reasons to prevent acquisition of a vehicle. I heavily doubt the GAO would have found the M3 Medium Tank's Training and Manuals operationally suitable as the US was desperately trying to build up an armored force in early WW2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I think that the US system is at times too transparent, especially when modern programs are being compared to cold war era programs.

Sometimes I'm almost inclined to say they need less transparency.

 

If Apple starts being transparent with how many times their engineers had "oh fuck!" moments, I think people would not even consider buying their products, even though by release all these issues are eliminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Armchair general pants on: I don't really understand the point of this vehicle......

 

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

A Humvee that is protected from underbelly blasts and more mobile, but the shift to a major power conflict and the glut of Humvees has resulted in the Army slowing the JLTV purchase.

So to somewhat add to what AP said, what's exactly wrong with the JLTV in the aspect of a major power conflict?

Is the desired route a larger battle bus like the VBMR Griffon?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

 

I think the point is that the Humvee isn't just used as a basic utility vehicle, JLTV was meant to replace it in situations where Humvee's had to eat IED's and partake in heavy urban combat.

 

43 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So to somewhat add to what AP said, what's exactly wrong with the JLTV in the aspect of a major power conflict?

Is the desired route a larger battle bus like the VBMR Griffon?

 

Upgrading a Humvee fleet (that you have many thousands of) to JLTV is a lower priority than upgrading MBT, IFV, artillery etc. The US Army doesn't have infinite money and has to make choices.

 

If a situation requires the use of 'battle buses' then the US Army has more MRAPS than it knows what to do with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

I'll elaborate a little, I guess the premise just seemed odd to me because the HMMWV was never designed to eat IED's and take the fight to folks in heavy urban street fighting. As a basic utility vehicle there's nothing wrong with it besides being old at this point.  

I remember when the Humvee first came into service.  oO

 

Link to post
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.

  • 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...