TokyoMorose Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 On 5/12/2019 at 1:03 PM, 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. As true as this is, the age is honestly rather cause enough for replacement. The things are slow, maintenance intensive, not particularly stable, and lack some "creature comforts" that have rather proven to be necessary in certain operations (the classic case being no effective AC in desert fighting...). You might be able to get away with a deep overhaul, but likely for the same costs as a newer design. 22 hours ago, Ramlaen said: 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. I thought one of the ideas of JLTV was to actually save money in the long run by allowing the vast mishmash of hurriedly-acquired MRAPs to be liquidated in favor of one standard family of machines. Seems a bit like hurting yourself in the future to save money now by keeping all of the different humvee & MRAP configs in use. It's just odd because so many of the other procurement decisions being made seem to focus on this rebuilding-for-the-long-term prioritization and cutting back of interim/stopgap work (such as Bradley/Abrams upgrades getting scaled back in favor of additional NGCV funding, and Chinook F Block II getting axed for a bump in FVL funds)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 The Army has already liquidated much of its MRAP fleet and focused on the MaxxPro. Slowing JLTV procurement aligns with cutting back Bradley and Chinook upgrades to free up funding for the 'big six'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 53 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: The Army has already liquidated much of its MRAP fleet and focused on the MaxxPro. Slowing JLTV procurement aligns with cutting back Bradley and Chinook upgrades to free up funding for the 'big six'. The Big Six, although a welcome change of paradigm and more focus on R&D and production of new kit over overhauls and life extensions of old kit, it's not exactly striking a good balance, from my POV. It's pretty much what the IDF did, but on a grander scale. We were so focused on constantly upgrading our AFVs and creating new ones, projects easily worth hundreds of millions on a regular basis, that we've neglected the technological improvements of the infantry, who inherently can make similar leaps in equipment-derived capability via much smaller investments (just let's not enter the whole stupid "for 1 X we could buy 200 Y" argument). It took a long time but now it seems our procurement agency has struck a better balance. The Big Six seems to me like it is one step behind in that regard and it frustrates me. But I'm not familiar with it enough so I could be wrong. Hopefully. My only remaining question for now is - Is the JLTV too big to kill? (In favor of a cheaper alternative, or for a redesign to fit the army's revamped strategy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 14, 2019 Report Share Posted May 14, 2019 (edited) Outright killing the JLTV in favor of? What the Army is doing is a cheaper alternative and what sort of redesign are you thinking of? Edited May 14, 2019 by Ramlaen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted May 14, 2019 Report Share Posted May 14, 2019 Thailand is buying Strykers: https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/1676940/army-seals-deal-to-buy-us-armour Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssaultPlazma Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 On 5/13/2019 at 5:24 PM, TokyoMorose said: As true as this is, the age is honestly rather cause enough for replacement. The things are slow, maintenance intensive, not particularly stable, and lack some "creature comforts" that have rather proven to be necessary in certain operations (the classic case being no effective AC in desert fighting...). You might be able to get away with a deep overhaul, but likely for the same costs as a newer design. Yeah I understand replacing the HMMWV due to age. It just seems like the JLTV is overkill for what should just be a simple lightweight utility vehicle IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted May 20, 2019 Report Share Posted May 20, 2019 Some sort of SHORAD(?) variant on the XM1200 FCS chassis. Any more info would be appreciated skylancer-3441 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted May 20, 2019 Report Share Posted May 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: Some sort of SHORAD(?) variant on the XM1200 FCS chassis. Any more info would be appreciated The timeframe seems to match the MTHEL (Nautilus) laser system, if it's really the XM1200 from the FCS. An M230 and Stinger pack seems like a recent addition though. When was the picture taken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted May 20, 2019 Report Share Posted May 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: When was the picture taken? The picture is from a company called Modeled horizons. They do a lot of work for defense contractors, especially BAE Systems. On their site, they refer to it as "CAT" but I couldn't find any more info than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 Karamazov and Lord_James 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 21, 2019 Report Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) M1A2C testing, you can see how the mantlet barely pokes out past the turret face now. https://www.army.mil/article/222100/ Edited May 22, 2019 by Ramlaen Clan_Ghost_Bear, SH_MM and VPZ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 23, 2019 Report Share Posted May 23, 2019 The (US Army) awarded design integration study contracts — no more than $150,000 each — for the Stryker Medium Caliber Weapons System (MCWS) lethality program to General Dynamics Land Systems, Kollsman Inc., Leonardo DRS, Raytheon and Pratt & Miller Engineering and Fabrication Inc. For the A1 Stryker. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted May 25, 2019 Report Share Posted May 25, 2019 Not sure where to post... US troops driving Uzbekistan's T-64BV Spoiler Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 BAE is out of NGCV: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/10/major-combat-vehicle-player-wont-participate-in-us-armys-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicle-competition/ Not very surprising, the CV-90 wasn't a strong bid compared to the other players. Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 You can see some Abrams and Bradley buddy towing in this, starting just after the 7 minute mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNT11593 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 So this is something I've never really thought about, but is the LP-CROWS going to ever work its way onto strykers and HMMWVs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 18 minutes ago, JNT11593 said: So this is something I've never really thought about, but is the LP-CROWS going to ever work its way onto strykers and HMMWVs? Probably not, having a CROWS-J on an Abrams is also extremely unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 Heh, didn't knew about that vehicle. Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 https://www.janes.com/article/89156/us-army-eyes-equipping-a-robotic-combat-vehicle-medium-with-a-30-mm-turret?socialmedia=twitter In the near future, the US Army wants to equip units with a Robotic Combat Vehicle-Medium (RCV-M) outfitted with a 30 mm turret to defeat armoured personnel carriers, trucks, and troops. In a 7 June announcement, the service unveiled tentative plans to acquire a RCV-M platform to augment the “organic” formation with a direct-fire capability, while also leveraging on-board sensors to help form a common operating picture. “The RCV-M’s aggressive mobility profile enables it to keep pace with its organic formation during off-road maneuver and movement on improved surfaces,” the service wrote. “Its on-board autonomy package reduces the cognitive burden of the operator while maintaining an aggressive cyber defense posture to maintain both assured control and the trust of the operator.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 13, 2019 Report Share Posted June 13, 2019 Are those fuel barrels? https://477768.livejournal.com/6265435.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted June 13, 2019 Report Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, LoooSeR said: Are those fuel barrels? https://477768.livejournal.com/6265435.html Yes. The gas engined Pattons were thirsty machines, so a stopgap solution when traveling was to add fuel drums to the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted June 13, 2019 Report Share Posted June 13, 2019 The four jettisonable 55 gal fuel drums mounted on the rear deck increased the tank's range to about...135 miles. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 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.