Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MRose said:

 

So a trash can on a conscript's head?

 

 

 

I'd figure the coordinates would be shared by the command center and the firing solution would be created automatically. I'd imagine this is going to be using Topgun since massed artillery and urban environments don't mix well together.

 

It will use TopGun, but not exclusively. Even in urban settings there is some room for statistical firing. 

For the more accurate jobs, the artillery corps will actually prefer to utilize the rocket artillery systems that are already equipped with precision guided weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MRose said:

I guess we'll have to see if this system lives up to expectations or not. The archer comes to mind for sub-par automated systems.

Yeah I remember back in the day I used to shit on the Archer as much as I do on the Chally 2 nowadays. It could be a decent system but completely fucked up by a lack of a very simple feature called emergency manual loading. And of course a very small ammunition belly that removes all prospects for mission flexibility.

 

But this one is not the same, if we're going to judge by the Sholef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MRose said:

Was just pointing out how hard automated systems are. The K9A2 and Koalitsiya look like they're shaping up to be pretty great systems. Then again there's always the XM2001, so these systems aren't particularly ground breaking.

You mean K9A1, I suppose, and from what I've gathered it's only rather small upgrades to the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MRose said:

Might be an interesting program if the IDF fields a RAP, so they can do fire support from Israel proper. If you can hit 100km out (lol) without having to worry about any of the upside of tracks, then that's a pretty big win.

At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells.

Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
5 hours ago, MRose said:

Might be an interesting program if the IDF fields a RAP, so they can do fire support from Israel proper. If you can hit 100km out (lol) without having to worry about any of the upside of tracks, then that's a pretty big win.

At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells.

Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years.

 

I'd imagine that the US will be looking at an operating concept like this, since the M109 is old as shit and there's no need to follow that closely to armor if you have a 50+ km range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

I'd imagine that the US will be looking at an operating concept like this, since the M109 is old as shit and there's no need to follow that closely to armor if you have a 50+ km range.

The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces. 

It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value. 

 

Allowing artillery to stay farther behind is not a good reason to extend its range, especially if range extention costs good money.

 

M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name.

The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces

It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value

 

That'd be the role of AF and rocket artillery, probably.  Even in the video you posted the artillery was behind the C4  post.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name.

The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.

 

The A6 and A7 were piecemeal upgrades because the XM2001 and NLOS-C never came to fruition, I'd be highly surprised in 10 years if they wasn't a replacement program, especially when you get into HE stuff. The AMPV was because the NGCV failed, which I'm sure you're aware of the details, and the AMPV is no spring chicken. We'll probably get something based off the other replacement programs and highly robotized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MRose

The NGCV did not fail in any way.

The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project.

The rest are the MPF which is in a good state at the moment, an MBT whose development hasn't yet started, and the OMFV for which the US Army funded several prototypes already, to be built by 2020 and 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The NGCV did not fail in any way.

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. 

Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
6 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. 

Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively?

 

My bad you were referring to the CFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.

 

Quote

Last week, the U.S. Army began operational assessments of existing combat vehicles to validate capabilities against requirements for a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The effort, known as the Non-Developmental Vehicle, or NDV, Assessments will take place on the border of Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

The assessments are being conducted on domestic vehicles -- the M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Double V-Hull, and a Turretless Bradley -- as well as the Israeli Namer and Swedish CV-9035, both international vehicles. 

The NDVs included in the assessments feature a wide range of unique capabilities and attributes, which will allow the Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of multiple configurations and families of vehicles to better understand requirements achievability.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/80185/The_Desert_Heats_Up_as_GCV_Kicks_Off_Non_Developmental_Vehicle__NDV__Assessments/

 

Not just the CBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namer was heavily penalized for only having a M2 and not a 30mm, FWIW. It's not unreasonable to believe that if it had the current turret, it would've been graded drastically better and it also met the squad requirement vs the Puma. Just pointing out a missed opportunity for Israeli industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, it was lackluster in several categories. Even if you give them Puma's grades for firepower (which would be too much, because Puma was analyed as the ordered configuration including the TSWA), it still would fall short of the Puma in overall outcome due to the higher price that the US' CBO expected to need to pay and its lower mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puma was both a contender for the GCV (a modified variant, but the Army didn't believe it was worth funding over the paper designs from BAE and GD) and chosen as best option (in an unmodified form) by the CBO. The CBO suggested that the US Army should scrapp the nine men requirement (they also did that, but at a later point) and instead buy more Pumas. That was considered to be the most cost-effective solution by the CBO.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...