Laviduce Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 On 8/6/2019 at 9:56 AM, LoooSeR said: In Georgia (country) Hide contents Spoiler Now we just need to see T-90As in Mexico and we are set ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Laviduce said: Now we just need to see T-90As in Mexico and we are set ! Your homework is to come up with a reason for Mexico to do joint military exercises. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: Your homework is to come up with a reason for Mexico to do joint military exercises. The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: Your homework is to come up with a reason for Mexico to do joint military exercises. US supported drug cartels, Ramlaen, N-L-M, Lord_James and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 24 minutes ago, Laviduce said: The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability. Can you come up with a reason that actually fits Mexico's situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: Can you come up with a reason that actually fits Mexico's situation? 37 minutes ago, LoooSeR said: US supported drug cartels Zadlo and Laviduce 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC GiantDad Posted August 8, 2019 Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 a reason that isn't a shitpost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted August 9, 2019 Report Share Posted August 9, 2019 If Russian Tanks and other Military units appeared in Mexico for ANY reason the US Government would SHIT a Brick. So what if we have our shit in their backyard, that's US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 9, 2019 Report Share Posted August 9, 2019 LAV-25A2 hull armor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 9, 2019 Report Share Posted August 9, 2019 article on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1985-12 Spoiler some pics photographed separately Spoiler article (in german) on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1986-01 Spoiler larger pic of Mowag 8x8 w/Ares 75mm cannon Spoiler other version and more on this vehicle from other sources - IDR 1980-01 AUSA article: and aso leaflet I've stumbled across on Ebay once larger pic of scalemodel of what would eventually become known as M109A5 btw, on this photo of M109A5 model one can spot at the background an red-and-black artist's drawing of some tank - also published b/w in Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, but it appeared earlier (and with caption which says it artist drawing of M1 replacement from General Electric) in IDR 1982-02 Spoiler and later, in 2008, journalist from Polish magazine Nowa Technika Wojskowa saw this pic among others used by Klimov's design bureau (responsible for Soviet and Russian gas turbine engines, including tanks), and started guessing whether this pic depicts T-80 replacement or not (NTW 2008-02, article Drogi do nowego rosyjskiego czolgu by Tomasz Szulc) article on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1986-12 Spoiler some pics photographed separately Spoiler article (in german) on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1987-01 Spoiler larger pic of scalemodel of M1 Abrams-based tank w/ some new turret similar vehicle is well-known from artist's drawing Spoiler like this one from some magazine and this one from Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, p.250 LoooSeR, Clan_Ghost_Bear, Laviduce and 2 others 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-L-M Posted August 9, 2019 Report Share Posted August 9, 2019 27 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said: AUSA 1985 That article mentions the COV. I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical. Knowing the name allowed me to find this: Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild: skylancer-3441, Lord_James, Scolopax and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 13, 2019 Report Share Posted August 13, 2019 A couple more from Georgia. VPZ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XhaxhiEnver Posted August 14, 2019 Report Share Posted August 14, 2019 On 8/2/2019 at 11:58 PM, Lord_James said: You must be insane, @XhaxhiEnver; truly. When comparing the cost of a series production, you use a single year’s dollar equivalent, which accounts for in/deflation, because the uncorrected values will indeed skew the final costs. It is a common, accepted practice to use the value of the dollar (or whatever currency) of the first year of production of an item, for all years that the item was produced. Ergo, if you want to compare the unit cost of the M1 over its production run, you would most likely use the value of the M1 in the first year it was produced. Inflation will make the cost higher because THAT’S WHAT INFLATION DOES! It makes the unit monetary value decrease, meaning you need MORE MONEY to pay for the same item. This is why it is imperative to adjust for inflation of goods. One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction), and that’s certainly not cheap for 7000 vehicles; worker, electric, and materials costs (it would be ridiculous to think contractor, sub-contractor, and other utility and manufacturing costs would not be estimated and included in the report). I don’t know where you learned to estimate finances, but you should probably ask for your money back. The cost of a series production, is calculated on procurement prices. Unless you pay for them prior and use a layered contract. Which them would indeed make no difference. The US did not. It paid for tranches through yearly procurement programs. This meant that the inflation would affect both orders YoY and cost YoY. Furthermore Inflation doesn't do wonders. It is predictable post-hoc. So basically you can retrace how much the Inflation affected the unit price. Quote One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction), This is simply not true. Ammo, fuel, spares do not go in the unit procurement. They are procured separately because tanks don't break down only once. That's why they enter the cost of use, not the cost of acquisition. Again, the added cost for tooling as calculated in 1982 was roughly 10% added on the Hardware (200K USD). Again, the cost per hour or the M1 ended up being 3/4 times superior to the M60. This isn't due to inflation alone. It is also due to how the tank works. Last but not least, the 4.2 billion USD FY72 is for 4800 tanks, which still falls short of the 7K target. So... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 14, 2019 Report Share Posted August 14, 2019 Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 15, 2019 Report Share Posted August 15, 2019 https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/raytheon-and-rheinmetall-expand-us-army-omfv-team/ Quote Raytheon and Rheinmetall have introduced new partner Pratt & Miller Defense into their teaming to offer the Lynx IFV for the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) competition. The US-based company will provide engineering analysis for the vehicle being pitched for the OMFV requirement, the selected design for which is scheduled for fielding in 2026 and will replace the Bradley fighting vehicle. ‘Pratt & Miller brings extraordinary engineering experience and expertise to the team to make sure Lynx can withstand the battlefield's harsh conditions,’ Brad Barnard, Raytheon OMFV director, said. ‘Our troops deserve the safest and most advanced combat vehicle possible, and that's exactly what we will deliver.’ Raytheon and Rheinmetall teamed to offer the Lynx - a tracked armoured vehicle – for OMFV in 2018, which the companies say will be manufactured in the US if selected. ‘Raytheon and Rheinmetall are assembling a US supply chain for Lynx,’ Matt Warnick, American Rheinmetall Vehicles managing director, said. ‘Partnering with Pratt & Miller brings us one step closer to building Lynx in the USA.’ Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567119520996048896/ - 4 photos of slides from recent presentation on NGCV's RCVs Spoiler and another one from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567111444783996928/ Spoiler Clan_Ghost_Bear, Ramlaen, alanch90 and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 18, 2019 Report Share Posted August 18, 2019 Dat tin can though. Scolopax, Lord_James and Clan_Ghost_Bear 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted August 18, 2019 Report Share Posted August 18, 2019 44 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: Dat tin can though. Reveal hidden contents I see M1150; I am happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 18, 2019 Report Share Posted August 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Lord_James said: I see M1150; I am happy Added a picture for you. Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 23, 2019 Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/us-army-tests-combat-vehicles-for-next-generation-at-camp-grayling article with video on MET-D demonstrator and RCVs which shows MET-D's new interior with several monitors and couple of joysticks for people-other-than-commander-and-gunner Spoiler same poster with countdown clock at the bottom, which appeared on photos posted back in July unfortunatelly this video only shows a close-up of upper part of poster, so MET-D's cutaway in better quiality then this: is still not available and also another video on RCVs Clan_Ghost_Bear and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 25, 2019 Report Share Posted August 25, 2019 article from International Defense Review 1982-09 on Tank Breaker, DARPA's program from late 70s-early 80s to develop fire-and-forget ATGM to replace Dragoon, which eventually led to Javelin Spoiler separately photographed pics Spoiler ...including two possible designs of Tank-Breaker-carrying vehicles, each transporting dozens of missiles: Spoiler LoooSeR, Clan_Ghost_Bear, Serge and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 26, 2019 Report Share Posted August 26, 2019 article on AUSA 1987 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1987-12 Spoiler separately photographed pics Spoiler article (in german) on AUSA 1987 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1988-01 Spoiler separately photographed pics Spoiler also from Jane's AFV Retrofit Systems 1993-94 Spoiler article on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1988-12 Spoiler separately photographed pics Spoiler article (in german) on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1989-01 Spoiler article (in german) on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1989-02 Spoiler separately photographed pics from both articles Spoiler camouflage canvas/tarpaulin/whatever over most of ERA kit printed on a page spread, which is rather hard to photograph, so it kinda turned Bradley into 5-roadwheel version w/puny little turret and short-barrel cannon b/w pic from Czechoslovak magazine ATOM 1989-02 shows it properly: Spoiler Serge, Clan_Ghost_Bear, Lord_James and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 28, 2019 Report Share Posted August 28, 2019 https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/08/28/us-army-picks-3-teams-to-build-infantry-squad-vehicle-prototypes/ The U.S. Army has picked an Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense LLC team, an SAIC and Polaris team, and GM Defense to competitively build Infantry Squad Vehicles intended to provide ground mobility for infantry brigade combat teams. The ISV is intended to supplement and potentially replace vehicles the Army procured as version 1.1 of the Ground Mobility Vehicle. The ISV “is additive” to infantry brigade combat teams “and currently not planned as a replacement for current vehicles in the formation,” according to Herrick. Oshkosh and Flyer, in a way, represent the incumbent, as Flyer produced the GMV 1.1. vehicle currently fielded. Flyer Defense “is the design authority” and will lead the team in building the prototypes, according to a statement from the team. GM Defense’s ISV is based on its Chevrolet Colorado midsize truck and its ZR2 and ZR2 Bison variants, according to a company statement, “supplemented with both custom and commercially available parts proven by Chevy performance engineering in more than 10,000 miles of punishing off-road development and desert racing in the Best of the Desert Racing series.” The SAIC-Polaris team is submitting the DAGOR vehicle, which “delivers off-road mobility while meeting the squad’s payload demands, all within the weight and size restrictions that maximize tactical air transportability,” according to Jed Leonard, vice president of Polaris Government and Defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 28, 2019 Report Share Posted August 28, 2019 This is the GM proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted August 29, 2019 Report Share Posted August 29, 2019 article from IDR 1984-07 separately photograped pics Spoiler LoooSeR, Serge, Clan_Ghost_Bear and 3 others 6 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.