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

[TokyoMorose]

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside. 

 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

[Serge]

Yes. 
If the RT20 was the Kongsberg proposal, you’re right. This turret was designed for chassis which can’t support heavy solutions. 
So, it’s hard to believe in the Oshkosh capability to integrate an APS or ATGM. 

[StarshipDirect]

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

You’re forgetting the added height from the plate that supports the MCT-30 turret. It’s the about the same as the Oshkosh turret when you factor this in. No plans for an APS are you sure? They actually all had ATGM capabilities, just not presented with the launchers. 

[SH_MM]

There still is an ongoing investigation on APS suited for the Stryker with the Rafael Trophy VPS and the Rheinmetall StrikeShield being evaluated. Due to Covid-19, the program was delayed for a few months.

[Ramlaen]

Stryker A1 very much has the weight margins for APS in addition to the turret.

[StarshipDirect]

For all the people saying this turret is too tall. Look at how tall the MCT-30 made the Stryker with the hull riser. Huge difference, Army made the right choice. 

[Ramlaen]

To repeat myself from twitter, the roof of the Dragoon isn't really higher than Oshkosh's vehicle though which implies GLDS's proposed vehicle has a taller roof for a different reason.

 

Here are some bigger versions of the pics.

Spoiler

 

[DIADES]

On 6/6/2021 at 6:25 PM, SH_MM said:

APS suited for the Stryker with the Rafael Trophy VPS and the Rheinmetall StrikeShield

Interesting.  No Iron Fist?

[DIADES]

On 6/7/2021 at 1:32 AM, Ramlaen said:

weight margin

Depends on which APS?  Pretty big range of mass I think?

[StarshipDirect]

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

To repeat myself from twitter, the roof of the Dragoon isn't really higher than Oshkosh's vehicle though which implies GLDS's proposed vehicle has a taller roof for a different reason.

 

Here are some bigger versions of the pics.

  Hide contents

 

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall. 

[TokyoMorose]

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall. 

 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

 

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

[StarshipDirect]

34 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

 

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want. 

[Serge]

This kind of integration is not a serious one. It’s a last minute welding. 

[TokyoMorose]

3 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want. 

 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

[Beer]

Well, it's the the military who sets the requirements. The manufacturers only offer solution to those requirements.

[Serge]

13 minutes ago, Beer said:

Well, it's the the military who sets the requirements. The manufacturers only offer solution to those requirements.

Yes. 
But the very problem with the Stryker is that it was supposed to be an interim AFV. So, it must be very difficult to express any request. 

[Ramlaen]

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. 
But the very problem with the Stryker is that it was supposed to be an interim AFV. So, it must be very difficult to express any request. 

 

Stryker being an interim AFV was dropped before it entered service. Stryker A1 is a different vehicle altogether with the same name.

[StarshipDirect]

20 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

These turrets are designed to be modular, you’d be surprised what types of modifications they can do with a simple looking turret. Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf

[Laser Shark]

8 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf

 

That’s your interpretation, and not necessarily objective truth. The PDF-document only mentions that these are options for the RT-series, which includes the RT60, and that an ATGM can be fitted to a roof mounted RWS on an MCT-30/RT40.

[StarshipDirect]

15 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

That’s your interpretation, and not necessarily objective truth. The PDF-document only mentions that these are options for the RT-series, which includes the RT60, and that an ATGM can be fitted to a roof mounted RWS on an MCT-30/RT40.

Did you not see the picture I posted above showing the MCT-30 with a Javelin ATGM and Hydra 70 rocket pod mounted to the sides of the turret? One would assume this turret doesn’t need an RWS to launch ATGMs. If a manned Bradley turret can mount Iron Fist why wouldn’t this turret be able to? Call it my interpretation but it seems really pointless for Kongsberg to offer a turret that can’t fire ATGMs or mount an APS. It would also be a terrible decision for the Army to buy a turret that can’t utilize these options. 

[Laser Shark]

You wrote that Kongsberg claims the MCT-30/MT40 can be outfitted with an ATGM and APS. I merely pointed that this isn’t at all clear from the source you provided. In other words, you cannot use this source to strengthen your case.

 

Yes, I’m also well aware that Javelin missiles have been attached to the side of the MCT-30/RT40 in the past, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good solution that any military would want to adapt. On the contrary, the U.S. Army never bothered attaching Javelins to their MCT-30s, and has instead fielded Strykers with CROWS-J to complement them. And despite showing up in photos of the ACV prototype, it doesn’t seem like such a solution will be making its way into the USMC either since they have apparently acquired the lighter and more compact MT20 instead, a turret that is likely less capable of mounting such equipment.

 

(Also, am I the only one struggling with getting my posts submitted lately?)

[DIADES]

On 6/11/2021 at 12:16 PM, StarshipDirect said:

Iron Fist

Dud.  Has anybody taken Iron Fist into service?  Lots of "trials" but no contracts?

[Ramlaen]

3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Dud.  Has anybody taken Iron Fist into service?  Lots of "trials" but no contracts?

 

Actually yes, and we have talked about the Netherlands adopting it for their CV90 on this forum before.

[N-L-M]

The Dutch and IDF signed contracts for series production (for cv90, Eitan, and D9 bulldozers), but none have reached FUE or IOC milestones yet.

[DIADES]

On 6/15/2021 at 11:55 PM, Ramlaen said:

adopting it for their CV90

but not in service or even proto testing yet