Ramlaen Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 5 hours ago, David Moyes said: BAE to Get Green Light for $10 Billion Howitzer Project: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bae-to-get-green-light-for-dollar10-billion-howitzer-project/ar-BBYxHIM?ocid=st ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Army Now Has Enough Upgraded Abrams Tanks To Equip An Entire Brigade: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-now-has-enough-upgraded-abrams-tanks-equip-entire-brigade-109656 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAE Raven: This Ronkainen fellow keeps posting old information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 On 1/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: can do KE reliably. I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015. Could deal with KE 30mm and above. 25mm too small to reliably detect. The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis. Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration. But - Diehl did a diehl with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome. The performance of that is very much less. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRose Posted January 5, 2020 Report Share Posted January 5, 2020 On 1/4/2020 at 4:41 PM, DIADES said: I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015. Could deal with KE 30mm and above. 25mm too small to reliably detect. The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis. Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration. But - Diehl did a diehl with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome. The performance of that is very much less. Iron Fist is a result of earlier cooperation, don't think they had anything to do with each other by 2015. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 8 hours ago, MRose said: Iron Fist is a result of earlier cooperation, don't think they had anything to do with each other by 2015. Interesting. That may explain the performance discrepancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 6, 2020 Report Share Posted January 6, 2020 Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 9, 2020 Report Share Posted January 9, 2020 SH_MM, Stimpy75, LoooSeR and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted January 9, 2020 Report Share Posted January 9, 2020 Was there anything about OMFV in that presentation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 9, 2020 Report Share Posted January 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: Was there anything about OMFV in that presentation? no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 Ripsaw wins. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/army-robots-two-contracts-forward-one-contract-back/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 Clan_Ghost_Bear and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 The turret face armor reminds me of that one Abrams that was posted and then deleted from Yuma's facebook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted January 10, 2020 Report Share Posted January 10, 2020 https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/general_dynamics_land_systems_releases_first_picture_of_new_mpf_combat_vehicle.html Quote The new “light tank” will have improved armor and a 120 mm main gun that looks like the Abrams’ 120mm cannon. Though it is rather 105 mm cannon on the prototype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 ARE YOU FUCKING FOR REAL!?! https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/failing-fast-army-reboots-bradley-replacement-omfv/ alanch90 and LoooSeR 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Someone should make a meme with the scene of Pentagon Wars where the guy in charge laments "This was going to be so beautiful" shaun22sd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/01/16/army-takes-step-back-on-bradley-replacement-prototyping-effort/ Quote Several sources confirmed a letter was circulating around Capitol Hill from GDLS to the Army secretary that strongly urged the service to continue with the program without delay. Gee sure doesn't sound like something done to favor Raytheon/Rheinmetall after they failed to deliver a bid sample on time. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that. You don't end up with a sole offer on a program of that size, unless you are demanding something goofy. Nobody even bothered (sure, the Lynx technically couldn't be shipped in time - but failure to ship in time is something that reeks of the bosses not treating it as a plausible thing) to bid outside of GDLS, and if Breaking Defense is right, GDLS couldn't even actually meet the monstrous spec list. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said: I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that Not sure if this has been posted here before, but googling around I found the draft RFP: https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal Government/ID229292510237748546949630439132667118527/DRAFT_NGCV-OMFV_RFP_(W56HZV-18-R-0174).pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: Not sure if this has been posted here before, but googling around I found the draft RFP: https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal Government/ID229292510237748546949630439132667118527/DRAFT_NGCV-OMFV_RFP_(W56HZV-18-R-0174).pdf That's just the contract legalese, actual vehicle requirements are tab 2 of attachment 0045, which I have not found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 Just now, TokyoMorose said: That's just the contract legalese, actual vehicle requirements are tab 2 of attachment 0045, which I have not found. Sorry about that. Would be interesting to know what the specific requirement was that made it unattainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 7 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: specific requirement as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable. The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature.... DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering. I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy. Clan_Ghost_Bear and TokyoMorose 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 10 hours ago, DIADES said: as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable. The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature.... DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering. I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy. Hey, I guessed right - the absolutely stupid 360 degree protection requirement was what doomed the GCV as well (remember the baseline config was 60 something tons and the system max was 84?). The Puma is as good as you can get protection wise and fitting two on a C-17. DIADES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxhound Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 Any word on what the 360 degree protection requirement was for? Or even some rough ballpark of what they wanted it to be able to resist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, foxhound said: protection requirement STANAG L6 plus, plus, plus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, foxhound said: Any word on what the 360 degree protection requirement was for? Or even some rough ballpark of what they wanted it to be able to resist? Anyone who actually knows wouldn't tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: Anyone who actually knows wouldn't tell you. Correct, well certainly shouldn't. If you want to estimate it yourself, pretend you are a spotty teenager and go around the web copy paste every threat you can find (lint ballistic to 30mm) = OMFV threats to be defeated. Specification development by window shopping. 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.