I really should change my personal text
- Jul 27, 2011
- Reaction score
The article lays out that the GDLS vehicle is significantly changed from the "Griffin III" concept. In fact they describe it as no longer being of the Griffin/Ajax/ASCOD vehicle family. This could help explain the absence of players like BAE; if this has become a program where you need an all-new vehicle that fits inside the budget and schedule of an off-the-shelf solution, it would be pretty risky to burn a lot of company money trying to make your bid work.With the surprise disqualification of the Raytheon-Rheinmetall Lynx, the Army has effectively left itself with one competitor for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, General Dynamics -- unless the Pentagon or Congress intervene.breakingdefense.com
That would go nice on an AC-130 too.AUSA: The Army is looking for more range, more punch, and more options for its Next Generation Combat Vehicle, and is turning to Northrop Grumman to provide the 50mm gun that can rip through armor, or reach out and touch targets that current infantry vehicles can’t.breakingdefense.com
Does this mean there will be enough stowage for packs etc? Or will space still be at a premium?
It died long ago but is being revived in a modified form. The US Army is working on a new ammo range which also takes the 35 mm case and necks it out to 50 mm - but retains about the same case length (i.e. 228 mm) so more of the projectiles are visible instead of being buried in the case.What happened to the 50x330mm supershot? 3rd from left.
This desire is fast running up against the demands for IFV loadout/equippage, fielding a 100t IFV isn't practical for a number of reasons. Might be at the point where each squad having 2 vehicles is just accepted as optimal, even if you can only afford for one of those 2 to be a full IFV."But after decades of failed attempts, it has to convince industry it’s worth their time – and money – to try. "
BAE (can not beleive .. saying this) is the only that has used their nogin yet in this. DoD needs to pay for any prototype. One main reason to replace M2 a whole squad w/ gear doe not fit in the M2. Squads were being broken up. Eventually there will likely be exosuits on the troops.
The Army is wading back into an effort to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle with the release of a market survey on Feb. 7, tapping industry for ideas on what a future Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) might look like.
After receiving only one bid in its previous attempt to develop and procure the OMFV and subsequently deciding to cancel the existing solicitation last month, the Army has a new plan to move forward that seeks to avoid some of the pitfalls encountered during its first try.
The market survey itself asks companies to weigh in on what affected their decisions to participate, or not, in the previous OMFV competitive effort and how the Army might better engage with industry this time around.
To my understanding, "optionally manned" in an operational sense was that they wanted to be able to use it at times without the full 3-man crew onboard. Have it follow another OMFV by itself, have crew from one direct the turret from another, rollit into a high-threat spot with noone onboard to see if it takes an immediate hit, that sorta thing.Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
a fighting vehicle is an expensive decoy that will be missed when it is disabled. Project Carmel uses suicide drone to ferret out urban threats, but they are single use. a hunting VTOL UAS w/ a 40mm AGL, for instance, ... IMHOTo my understanding, "optionally manned" in an operational sense was that they wanted to be able to use it at times without the full 3-man crew onboard. Have it follow another OMFV by itself, have crew from one direct the turret from another, rollit into a high-threat spot with noone onboard to see if it takes an immediate hit, that sorta thing.Will 'optionally manned' be an excuse for a very cramped infantry compartment? I kind of thought the purpose was to carry infantry anyway?
An opposing piston is likely still a deflagration engine and a detonation engine which would be more efficient and thus prefered. (albeit a little louder). So not so advanced.
pay walledThe Army has released its new list of characteristics for the restarted Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) competition, detailing its broad problemwww.defensedaily.com
More reason for vehicle comprising of various technologies from varying companies but integrted by the gov. Once design is approved by the gov then components are subed out and if the final components dont fit then troubling subs start being penalized by the day.View attachment 629719
Advanced running gear for NGCV tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground | weapons defence industry military technology UK | analysis focus army defence military industry armyAdvanced running gear for NGCV tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Groundwww.armyrecognition.com