• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

WRT 4 vs 5 axles, 5 axles = 10 wheels = more surface area = less ground pressure. IMO.
 
KevinB said:
It really looks like it is the M548's retarded brother...
Click to expand...

If the US Army proceeds with the Rheinmetall Lynx perhaps we could expect to see this APC

1747067351272.png

In which case the RCH might find a home on that machine instead.
 
Kirkhill said:
If the US Army proceeds with the Rheinmetall Lynx perhaps we could expect to see this APC

View attachment 93250

In which case the RCH might find a home on that machine instead.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any chance for RH winning MICV.
One might be tempted to say the only reason the Bradley replacement was announced instead of opting for the A5 Bradley is that the Bradley is now made by BAE instead of FMC that was a US company, but FMC divested their Military vehicle wing to BAE.

BAE got APMV, so I’m pretty sure with the M-10 Booker divestment the XM-30 MICV is going to go to GDLS, as the factory that made it can make the MICV as the chassis are alike.
 
KevinB said:
It really looks like it is the M548's retarded brother...
Click to expand...
Originally, RCH155 came out with a version on the MRL chassis which also looked like that but which, IMHO, seems more stable than Boxer,

I think, M548 would be too light for RCH 155, regardless as to how ugly it might be.

I’m somewhat chassis agnostic. Assuming the ten wheel Piranah can handle it then I’m okay with it supporting a LAV brigade, but for a tracked IFV brigade, I want some form of tracks.

And then there is K9 and Redback. ;)

🍻
 
KevinB said:
My point to those was if there was a made in Canada option.

I’m not sure BAE would be interested in a North American CV-90 manufacturing facility, without significant demand.
Click to expand...
Canadian demand would probably make us the second largest user if not the largest in the world if we did it properly. Somewhere's around 300 vehicles at least. BAE builds smaller runs in a lot of places. That being said I suspect turrets would be made overseas and certainly some parts sourced there as well.

PrairieFella said:
65 seems to be the upper limit before you start hitting mobility issues.

Tanks will remain bullet proof. New armour tech is impressive, with some material sciences starting to mature. Im curious what armour will be like in 30 years, but at that point maybe we have laser guns that cuts right through haha. Tanks have always had to read the ground, perhaps moreso than the infantry. Easy to recover a dude from a fen, not so much a tank haha.
Click to expand...
Electric armour is my bet.
 
KevinB said:
It really looks like it is the M548's retarded brother...
Click to expand...

:)

poster speaking GIF by South Park
 
Underway said:
Canadian demand would probably make us the second largest user if not the largest in the world if we did it properly. Somewhere's around 300 vehicles at least. BAE builds smaller runs in a lot of places. That being said I suspect turrets would be made overseas and certainly some parts sourced there as well.


Electric armour is my bet.
Click to expand...
For those that aren't familiar with the concept of electric armour, please see the following.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Electric armour - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Underway said:
Canadian demand would probably make us the second largest user if not the largest in the world if we did it properly.
Click to expand...
Very close
Underway said:
Somewhere's around 300 vehicles at least. BAE builds smaller runs in a lot of places. That being said I suspect turrets would be made overseas and certainly some parts sourced there as well.
Click to expand...
I think you need 336 simply for 4 BN's of Infantry.
With Armour, Arty, Engineer and other uses - I think you are looking at near 500 platforms will all variants for a true CMBG.

Underway said:
Electric armour is my bet.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty skeptical due to the failure to protect against chemical penetrators.
Admittedly the HEAT MV's are considerably slower than DS kinetic penetrators, so you may have APS systems that can reliably take out the slower moving HEAT - and relying on Electric to provide defense against Kinetic long rods that may get by an APS.

Smaller and Smaller ERA blocks have been devised, which then requires multiple hits over the same area one larger block would have covered.
Thinner, Lighter Composite Armors - some of which can be "refilled" on the go - or just pulled off and replaced.

I suspect that we will see a broad multifaceted attempt on additional armor - primary armor will get lighter, but there will still be add ons of various types to accommodate theatre specific threats.
 
daftandbarmy said:
I joined the British Army in time to hear about how effective the Vickers Gun was during various 'brush fire' conflicts around the globe in the post-WW2 period from NCOs old enough to have used them in anger.

It was heavy, especially when the water jacket was full, but apparently completely reliable in sustained fire mode under the most adverse conditions, especially when used in the indirect fire role.
Click to expand...

Real

1747162452603.jpeg

and fictional

1747074279779.png 1747074381352.png
 
When the Brits retired the Vickers in 1968 . The Infantry School celebrated by running several million rounds through the school 's guns over a couple of days round the clock.
Without a malfunction either or so the story goes.
 
GK .Dundas said:
When the Brits retired the Vickers in 1968 . The Infantry School celebrated by running several million rounds through the school 's guns over a couple of days round the clock.
Without a malfunction either or so the story goes.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, 16 x Vickers at Bisley...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top