• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
635
Reaction score
6
To me it sort of sounds like the Armored Systems Modernization program before the Future Combat Systems craze.

Personally I don't see the need to incorporate unmanned capability into the primary set of vehicles. Instead I think they should concentrate on smaller unmanned designs to complement the manned designs. That way if the autonomous systems aren't ready on time it won't hold up fielding the NGCV.

Still would like to see a replacement for the M109A7 included in all of this.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
http://defense-update.com/20180424_yagu_new.html

Plasan unveiled today it’s all-new, lightweight protected vehicle – Yagu at Expo Seguridad event in Mexico City this week. In fact, plasan transformed the 767 kg commercial Arctic Cat Wildcat 4 1000 four-seat all-terrain vehicle into a 1.48-ton (dry weight) fully-protected assault vehicle.

The vehicle is designed to behave like an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) but offers its crew of three persons the all-around 360 ballistic protection at a level of B6+ (similar to STANAG 4569 Level II) effective against 5.56X45, 7.62X39 and 7.62×51 threats. WIth front and side windows and all-round cameras the protected capsule provides excellent situational awareness and response, using an overhead ultra-light remotely operated weapon, that mounts a 5.56 or 7.62 machine gun and EO sensors operated by the crew from within the air-conditioned, armored capsule.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/28/could-armys-quest-leap-ahead-technologies-be-its-undoing.html

The U.S. Army is locked on a path to replace its tanks, helicopters and other major combat systems -- a daunting venture in itself. But the true challenge for the service may be avoiding the minefield of mistakes that led to the multibillion-dollar demise of another leap-ahead plan, Future Combat Systems, less than a decade ago.

As with FCS, the Army is gambling big on advanced technologies, including some that don't exist yet in an operational form. It's a strategy that service leaders believe will place the Army ahead of its global competitors.

But military modernization experts watching the effort unfold warn that the service must guard against program flaws that have poisoned past dreams of a future force: poor salesmanship, weak leaders, priorities that shift over time, and the Army's true Achilles heel -- the enticement of leap-ahead technology.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Great find Boobymike
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/28/could-armys-quest-leap-ahead-technologies-be-its-undoing.html

yes most GS13s and LTCs need to be out of decision making loop plus requirements can not be very fluid, but more importantly the
"535 members on your board of directors -- 100 senators and 435 members of the House" who are protecting contractors who need severe financial repercussions when they break promises is a demand.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/06/28/from-a-bradley-replacement-to-soldier-controlled-robot-swarms-big-moves-coming-with-army-robots/

Over the next few months, soldiers, scientists and top Army officials will establish how troops will use robots, from a single soldier directing a robot swarm to an optionally-manned Bradley replacement that will control its robot wingman vehicles in future combat formations.

The future of combined ground and air operations for the base of the ground forces, the squads and companies that do the lead fighting from scouts to riflemen, will see automation increased the range and effects of every soldier.

Those pending developments and others involving robotics and automation in scout and infantry units were outlined Wednesday in a conference call with reporters by two officials at the center of everything robot in the Army – Don Sando, deputy to the commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence and John Miller, the deputy director of the Army’s Cross Functional Team that oversees the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, also out of MCOE at Fort Benning, Georgia.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Colonial-Marine said:
Design a new one?

I don't see how there is much room for improvement over a modernized M8 AGS derivative.

Save the extra belly armor and anti-IED kit for once the thing actually gets to the ground, else I don't see how they'll possibly be able to air-drop it.
Agree a modernized M8 AGS w/ the 75mm ARES automatic cannon mount which demoed BMD operation seems like easiest Air droppable tank solution.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
https://www.army.mil/article/211236

WASHINGTON -- While our current combat fleet is composed of very capable vehicles, these vehicles have been in the inventory for decades and their ability to overmatch peer capabilities in close combat is starting to wane. As the Army prepares for future combat operations, it needs new platforms, with future growth margins, to maintain our ability to dominate the battlefield.

This is a challenge for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team, or NGCV CFT, to solve. The NGCV CFT was established as part of the Army's modernization strategy and is currently led by Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman. The team consists of hand-selected military and civilian personnel, who are charged with narrowing or closing Cross Domain Maneuver capability gaps. The team is well supported by Program Executive Office-Ground Combat Systems and Research, Development and Engineering Command leaders and representatives. The CFT serves as the primary Army integrator for Under Secretary of the Army/Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and Army Requirements Oversight Council decision for all supporting analysis, modeling, simulation and technical demonstrations. The NGCV CFT director, on behalf of the USA/VCSA, synchronizes the capability development process, and then rapidly transitions the requirement to a leader-approved capability into the Army Acquisition System.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/10/these-two-army-bcts-will-be-the-first-to-put-robotic-vehicles-in-their-formations/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM

The Army’s 101st Airborne Division and 10th Mountain Division will be the first to bring a robotic combat vehicle into their formations later this year.

Bryan McVeigh, project manager for the Army’s Force Protection Robotics Portfolio, laid out the testing and acquisition for the Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport at the National Defense Industry Association’s Ground Robotics Capabilities Conference Tuesday.

By this summer, the 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division of Fort Drum, New York, and the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, will get to test the vehicle and provide feedback on what is likely to be the first major autonomous robotic vehicle in Army formations.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
48
There was less explicit MPF talk at AUSA than I had expected, partly because NGCV concepts stole the show, but as Defense Maven reported the Army is pushing forward on their accelerated schedule to choose 2 vendors to build representative prototypes, with the goal of a down-select and LRIP by 2025.

The three bidders are still understood to be:
SAIC - Bidding a vehicle combining the the ST Kintetics NGAFV hull with the CMI defense Cockerill 3105 turret, mounting a 105mm gun.
General Dynmaics Land Systems - Bidding an evolution of their "Griffin" concept from 2016, likely still mounting an XM350 120mm gun.
BAE - Bidding an evolution of the M8 Armored Gun System, mounting a 105mm gun.

The Army is pushing pretty heavily for proven vehicles/systems to minimize development risk and accelerate the timetable, which is interesting because all 3 have plusses and minuses in that regard. SAIC's base vehicle is brand new, it's got nearly no track record and hasn't been produced in numbers yet, but the CMI turret is considered a pretty safe prospect. GDLS's base vehicle is pretty safe, being an updated ASCOD/Ajax, and they talk up their use of systems from the latest M1 modernization in the turret, but the turret itself is new and the XM360 only has as much development as it got before the FCS program died. BAE's team can point to the fact that the Army already type classified the M8 and accepted it once, but it was cancelled before production really got underway and has never been deployed operationally and whatever updates BAE has added since the 90s would effect how "proven" it can claim to be.

Personally, I'd like them to send BAE and GDLS to the next phase. SAIC's unproven vehicle and lack of existing production facilities in the US are big potential complications for a program that want to move this quickly.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces. None of these vehicles are "Next Generation". The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23562/combat-vehicle-weight-reduction-by-materials-substitution-proceedings-of-a?utm_source=NASEM+News+and+Publications&utm_campaign=43d2d938af-NAP_mail_new_2018_10_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_96101de015-43d2d938af-102139085&goal=0_96101de015-43d2d938af-102139085&mc_cid=43d2d938af&mc_eid=f43325c928

Combat Vehicle Weight Reduction by Materials Substitution
Proceedings of a Workshop (2018)
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
48
jsport said:
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces. None of these vehicles are "Next Generation". The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
MPF isn't pursuing "Next Generation" offering, it predates the NGCV umbrella program and is focused on an affordable, off-the-shelf solution. Even OMFV really isn't about a "Next Gen" vehicle so much as a newer, more flexible/up-gradable vehicle than Bradley.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Moose said:
jsport said:
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces. None of these vehicles are "Next Generation". The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
MPF isn't pursuing "Next Generation" offering, it predates the NGCV umbrella program and is focused on an affordable, off-the-shelf solution. Even OMFV really isn't about a "Next Gen" vehicle so much as a newer, more flexible/up-gradable vehicle than Bradley.
Yes, but BAE is still pushing an Next Gen Bradley including such changes as an upgraded turret w/ a larger gun, longer hull version, and a composite hull has been built back in the 90s. ..would have to say the Bradley is quite upgradable if waiting for Nex Gen is the plan.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
48
jsport said:
Moose said:
jsport said:
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces. None of these vehicles are "Next Generation". The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
MPF isn't pursuing "Next Generation" offering, it predates the NGCV umbrella program and is focused on an affordable, off-the-shelf solution. Even OMFV really isn't about a "Next Gen" vehicle so much as a newer, more flexible/up-gradable vehicle than Bradley.
Yes, but BAE is still pushing an Next Gen Bradley including such changes as an upgraded turret w/ a larger gun, longer hull version, and a composite hull has been built back in the 90s. ..would have to say the Bradley is quite upgradable if waiting for Nex Gen is the plan.
A Bradley which is too greatly changed from the baseline is a new vehicle anyway, so why not have it compete with CV90, Lynx, Griffin, etc? Especially as AMPV offers a route to re-use Bradleys that are discarded if the Army goes with another vehicle.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Moose said:
jsport said:
Moose said:
jsport said:
If the M8 BAE is offering can still house troops when needed, it would be great Air-Dropable tank for eventually converting all light divisions into Tank/IFV mobile forces. None of these vehicles are "Next Generation". The South Korean AS 21 Redback and German Lynx are close to NexGen but not really.
MPF isn't pursuing "Next Generation" offering, it predates the NGCV umbrella program and is focused on an affordable, off-the-shelf solution. Even OMFV really isn't about a "Next Gen" vehicle so much as a newer, more flexible/up-gradable vehicle than Bradley.
Yes, but BAE is still pushing an Next Gen Bradley including such changes as an upgraded turret w/ a larger gun, longer hull version, and a composite hull has been built back in the 90s. ..would have to say the Bradley is quite upgradable if waiting for Nex Gen is the plan.
A Bradley which is too greatly changed from the baseline is a new vehicle anyway, so why not have it compete with CV90, Lynx, Griffin, etc? Especially as AMPV offers a route to re-use Bradleys that are discarded if the Army goes with another vehicle.
This seems like a battle between BAE NexGen Bradley and GD Griffin 3/ soon 4. Until Griffin is full developed as a genuinely Nex Gen Veh (able to carry 9 w/ exoskeleton/Talos suit) then a common AMPV/Bradley baseline would seem to make most sense.

PS: The CV90 doesn't seem serious, as is too small. (Americans are too large for that vehicle.) Lynx is also a foreign vehicle and foreign dependence is not in vogue these days
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
107
jsport said:
PS: The CV90 doesn't seem serious, as is too small. (Americans are too large for that vehicle.) Lynx is also a foreign vehicle and foreign dependence is not in vogue these days
Poor Dutch soldiers(#1), forced to ride in poky (too small for US soldiers(#38)) Swedish-tomte(#11)-designed CV90s. https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php
#xx: rank in average height by country
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Arjen said:
jsport said:
PS: The CV90 doesn't seem serious, as is too small. (Americans are too large for that vehicle.) Lynx is also a foreign vehicle and foreign dependence is not in vogue these days
Poor Dutch soldiers(#1), forced to ride in poky (too small for US soldiers(#38)) Swedish-tomte(#11)-designed CV90s. https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php
#xx: rank in average height by country
The wonderment is how Dutch and Swedish soldiers fit in the CV-90. As stated in MBT-70 thread CV is just a lower profile vehicle.
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
107
jsport said:
The wonderment is how Dutch and Swedish soldiers fit in the CV-90. As stated in MBT-70 thread CV is just a lower profile vehicle.
Well, they do. "Reality is frequently inaccurate" - Douglas Adams
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Arjen said:
jsport said:
The wonderment is how Dutch and Swedish soldiers fit in the CV-90. As stated in MBT-70 thread CV is just a lower profile vehicle.
Well, they do. "Reality is frequently inaccurate" - Douglas Adams
Ever since seeing Dutch folks first hand ..have thought they should be the spear-head of any NATO force. Add Exosuits and even more so..but the 'unionized" deal is a question though ;D
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
635
Reaction score
6
Are height differences at all significant unless you are the Russians trying to jam a squad into the back of a BMP?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
29
Colonial-Marine said:
Are height differences at all significant unless you are the Russians trying to jam a squad into the back of a BMP?
Or members of the JASDF trying to jam soldiers into their APCs or Koreans trying to jam soldiers into their APCs.

Those average heights are the average for the entire populations, not the military population. The US Army carried out the most extensive ergonomic study at the end of WWII. They tested about 10,000 recruits for body measurements. Very little has been done in the West since. What you design for is not the average, you design for the outer extremes. Everybody below those extremes fit quite well into the space the extremes require. For the US Army study IIRC it was a shoulder width of 2 metres, a height of 2.2 metres - standing. Seated is considerably less height wise. If you adopt a seated posture with the legs raised a smaller volume is required than a conventional seated posture. That is how you fit soldiers into the back of a CV90 versus a M2/M3 Bradley.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
598
Reaction score
77
Kadija_Man said:
For the US Army study IIRC it was a shoulder width of 2 metres, a height of 2.2 metres - standing. Seated is considerably less height wise.
Two metres is 6.5 feet. Has anybody shoulders this wide outside of bodybuilder competitions?
Sure it's not ONE metre? (3.3 feet) That's wide enough for most guys.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
dan_inbox said:
Kadija_Man said:
For the US Army study IIRC it was a shoulder width of 2 metres, a height of 2.2 metres - standing. Seated is considerably less height wise.
Two metres is 6.5 feet. Has anybody shoulders this wide outside of bodybuilder competitions?
Sure it's not ONE metre? (3.3 feet) That's wide enough for most guys.
That’s 78” even a large man is not that big around his whole upper body.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
29
dan_inbox said:
Kadija_Man said:
For the US Army study IIRC it was a shoulder width of 2 metres, a height of 2.2 metres - standing. Seated is considerably less height wise.
Two metres is 6.5 feet. Has anybody shoulders this wide outside of bodybuilder competitions?
Sure it's not ONE metre? (3.3 feet) That's wide enough for most guys.
2 metres was the number quoted in the US Army study. Obviously they found one person who was that large. The study was the measurement of over 10,000 recruits.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,064
Reaction score
213
Kadija_Man said:
dan_inbox said:
Kadija_Man said:
For the US Army study IIRC it was a shoulder width of 2 metres, a height of 2.2 metres - standing. Seated is considerably less height wise.
Two metres is 6.5 feet. Has anybody shoulders this wide outside of bodybuilder competitions?
Sure it's not ONE metre? (3.3 feet) That's wide enough for most guys.
2 metres was the number quoted in the US Army study. Obviously they found one person who was that large. The study was the measurement of over 10,000 recruits.
The largest silver back gorilla had an around the whole chest measurement of 198cm at over 600 pounds. The army found a person who was the 2m across the shoulders in one direction, making them OVER 4m around?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
107
Err... we are drifting off topic. My reply two days ago was merely to point out CV90 should be roomy enough to accomodate US soldiers. If anyone here ever meets someone who is 2 meters wide at the shoulders, be sure to post images here.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
bobbymike said:
The largest silver back gorilla had an around the whole chest measurement of 198cm at over 600 pounds. The army found a person who was the 2m across the shoulders in one direction, making them OVER 4m around?
;D
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
598
Reaction score
77
Besides, to my knowledge armies do not try to accomodate all the extreme sizes. They actually reject those extremes (reject may not be the right word in English, more like exonerate).
They have to. You couldn't possibly design a truck that can be driven by the smallest dwarf and by the tallest giant in any country.

For what I have seen (in conscription armies), it works the other way around: the army sets a max and min size acceptable for combat units, and draftees outside those parameters get "medicaled out" and assigned to other tasks.
It may not fit everyone's dream of a perfect world, but it's reasonable.
 

poky

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Website
midnightgreys.blogspot.com
lol 2m no way, a person with his arms wide is just as wide as he is long so a person that is 1,8m long is with is arms stretched out 1,8m, there can be small difference but not much. Making 2m insane more likely its 2m around I'm a big guy and its not even 1,5m around so I can see a large guy with winter clothing getting to closer to 2m around or a more normal person with a pack
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Thinkin the Bradley isn't going anywhere soon.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18064/heres-the-armys-plan-for-a-larger-and-more-deadly-bradley-fighting-vehicle
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
48
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Moose said:
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.
Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :eek:
 

Attachments

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
48
jsport said:
Moose said:
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.
Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :eek:
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Moose said:
jsport said:
Moose said:
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.
Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :eek:
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.
Stryker upgrades are causing multiple problems a NGCV/OMFV needs to be designed from scratch . Maybe the Griffin IV will be close,, but COTS??

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2011.10.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,015
Reaction score
200
That cult has still to be purged, alas.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
39
Regarding the difference in height between Bradley IFV and CV90 IFV, can I add/ask if the the fact that the original XM723 / M2 design was somewhat 'bastardised' so as to facilitate the M3's reconnaissance and scout role/mission?
Also wondering if its prudent to consider that the M2 Bradly was designed not just as standard to deploy two BGM-71 TOW ATGM's, but to carry an addition five missiles, unlike the CV-90.

Oh, and one should maybe keep in mind that there was much time difference - and hence philosophy between the XM723 prototype and the CV90!

Might I also add that Hägglunds/Bofors obviously must have gotten the CV90 design right, as emphasized by the successful export record, as opposed to that of the Bradley!


Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
384
Reaction score
34
On the subject of chest size, consider how a soldier's chest expands when he adds: armour, magazine pouches, Camelback, radios, winter clothing and a large backpack. A 150 pound soldier might carry almost 150 pounds of equipment ..... effectively doubling his weight and girth.

Consider the old British Saracen 8-wheeled APC. The interior was so cramped that British soldiers adopted chest ammo pouches because there was not enough bench-width to hold conventional ammo, canteens, pistol holsters, flak vests, etc. - hung on web belts - and this was in Northern Ireland where most foot patrols lasted less than a day.

Air Forces design cockpits to fit 95th percentile males and 5th percentile females. 95th percentile means that 95% of the population are smaller than him.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
jsport said:
Moose said:
jsport said:
Moose said:
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.
Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :eek:
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.
Stryker upgrades are causing multiple problems a NGCV/OMFV needs to be designed from scratch . Maybe the Griffin IV will be close,, but COTS??

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2011.10.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew. Are Marines supposed the hold their breath and hold on to drag lines for the 13 mile swim. Can't understand why the AAAV wasn't unscrewed by another contractor and continued. There will be no revolutionary vehicle until the USG takes command of their programs. Contractors make money by slapping Next Generation on a current generation vehicle. Stock holders don't risk prototypes, governments do.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/09/24/us-marine-corps-kills-amphibious-assault-vehicle-upgrade-program/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2024.09.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
635
Reaction score
6
ACV seems more like an effort to get a Stryker-type infantry carrier vehicle with some amphibious capability. Understandable considering how often the amtracks are used hauling marines around and supporting them well inland. I would prefer to see a heavier armament like a 30mm cannon on it however.

EFV (AAAV) may have been asking too much with the technology of the time, I don't know the answer to that question but something like it to replace the AAVP-7A1 would have definitely been nice. I wonder "ACV 2.0" will have a similar high speed requirement.
 
Top