I'll believe it when I see it.
Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, the service’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army managed to move money around that will allow the service to finally equip the Elbit Systems-produced Iron Fist Light Decoupled (IF-LD) onto a handful of Bradleys, but cautioned that the total procurement is more in the “dozens” than fleet-wide.
For years the service has been hunting for APS’ to integrate onto M1 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradleys and Strykers to protect soldiers inside from incoming threats like rocket propelled grenades and one-way attack drones.
Although some Abrams and, soon, some Bradleys will have APS protection, Strykers remain without a candidate. Last year the service completed limited characterization testing with a possible candidate called StrikeShield, a hybrid hard-kill and armor solution by Rheinmetall and its US partner Unified Business Technologies, but that didn’t prove to be the right solution.
“We don’t have a suitable solution,” Dean said today.
30x113 mm is the compromise for when you think 100% of your lighter vehicles always need both .50 cal and 40 mm AGL.
IMHO, a new turret based on a Moog RIwP system that allows fleetwide tailored and retailorable solutions would be highly desirable. Not only would it provide a standardized turret system to solve a variety of needs, but it would also provide more internal space for additional ammunition or personnel in the vehicle. An added bonus would be that the system is vehicle agnostic and could be used on more vehicles than the LAV - Maybe finally a use for TLAVs.WRT our LAVs - Upgrade the M242 25mm to the 30x 173mm Mk44 Bushmaster II? Will it fit or does it need a whole new turret?
London will need something to do after ACSVIMHO, a new turret based on a Moog RIwP system that allows fleetwide tailored and retailorable solutions would be highly desirable. Not only would it provide a standardized turret system to solve a variety of needs, but it would also provide more internal space for additional ammunition or personnel in the vehicle. An added bonus would be that the system is vehicle agnostic and could be used on more vehicles than the LAV - Maybe finally a use for TLAVs.
With the recent ACSV purchase the long-term retention of the LAV fleet is a given. The next stage should be to upgrade the fleet to meet a wider capability than it has such as SHORAD and ATGM.
And to make @KevinB happy, to add a tracked IFV capability to the army which could also be fitted with the same RIwP systems - maybe rift off the Bradley chassis.
Agreed. And switching the fleet to RIwP turrets would be useful and relatively inexpensive. I'd also like to start them on something tracked albeit I'm not fond of their tracked version of the LAV. OTOH Ajax/Ares seems to be maturing (the Brits seem to finally be happy with it in the field) and if you get rid of its strange turret and replace it with the RIwP ... maybe that would be the solution. Four battalions (for two armoured brigades) should do as a starter.London will need something to do after ACSV
they can switch the turrets and then get working on the LAV 800 a hybrid drive common hull powertrain that can be wheeled and trackedAgreed. And switching the fleet to RIwP turrets would be useful and relatively inexpensive. I'd also like to start them on something tracked albeit I'm not fond of their tracked version of the LAV. OTOH Ajax/Ares seems to be maturing (the Brits seem to finally be happy with it in the field) and if you get rid of its strange turret and replace it with the RIwP ... maybe that would be the solution. Four battalions (for two armoured brigades) should do as a starter.
Yeah. I haven't been able to put my finger on it because of the scarcity of information on it, but I don't think a common hull to accommodate tracked or wheeled configuration is as common as they would have you believe. There is a world of a difference in the hull configuration, suspension and the drive train/final drive even if a common engine can be used.they can switch the turrets and then get working on the LAV 800 a hybrid drive common hull powertrain that can be wheeled and tracked
I remain intrigued by the possibilities. It might not make sense for larger militaries with large platform numbers but for smaller ones with smaller appetites or budgets?Yeah. I haven't been able to put my finger on it because of the scarcity of information on it, but I don't think a common hull to accommodate tracked or wheeled configuration is as common as they would have you believe. There is a world of a difference in the hull configuration, suspension and the drive train/final drive even if a common engine can be used.
I know the LAV 6.0 has become a pig in weight, but the real reason behind a tracked IFV and something like the LAV6.0 is supposed to be its armoured protection to make the tracked IFV a more combat capable machine. A tracked system and IFV requirements means more weight which means bigger engine and a bunch of knock on effects.
Personally I'd prefer to see a purpose built tracked IFV like Ajax/Ares or Puma and similar systems.
It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.In my industrial applications I cant say that my tracked machines were more heavily powered than my wheeled ones , if anything the reverse. I wonder if this is a carryover from previous lighter wheeled variants
I'm generally a fan of the concept of hybrid drives in civilian applications (I'm against pure EVs). But I do have reservations in a military environment. I recognize its advantages but I think these don't compensate for a heavy, complex and volatile battery brings to a vehicle that's liable to be engaged in combat and generally subject to rough handling. Watching T72s brew up and toss their turrets because someone thought it was a great idea to store powder bags and high explosives inside in an autoloader in the hull makes me wonder how much minor battle damage to a hybrid will result in a catastrophic stored energy release that turns a repairable/recoverable veh casualty into a total write-off.How much of the design constraints could be alleviated by hybrid drive? I remain surprised at the lack of uptake.
I guess i wasnt thinking hybrid in that sense just electric drive.It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.
I'm generally a fan of the concept of hybrid drives in civilian applications (I'm against pure EVs). But I do have reservations in a military environment. I recognize its advantages but I think these don't compensate for a heavy, complex and volatile battery brings to a vehicle that's liable to be engaged in combat and generally subject to rough handling. Watching T72s brew up and toss their turrets because someone thought it was a great idea to store powder bags and high explosives inside in an autoloader in the hull makes me wonder how much minor battle damage to a hybrid will result in a catastrophic stored energy release that turns a repairable/recoverable veh casualty into a total write-off.
We've already gone from vehicles that a driver with a tool bag could fix to ones that need a service centre with high priced electronic diagnostic systems. We need to simplify kit wherever possible.
Like a direct-power diesel electric or like a battery-storage petrol electric?I guess i wasnt thinking hybrid in that sense just electric drive.
The first. It is proven technology for ages and should free up lots of design considerations. One might need something for "quiet" mode batteries or an APULike a direct-power diesel electric or like a battery-storage petrol electric?
I've always liked the former but have doubts about anything that involves large storage batteries. I think pure EVs or ones designed for significant pure electric operation are a very good option for recce motorcycles and very light weight recce vehicles but an unnecessary complication for anything heavier.
The M10, like the AJAX, are derivatives from the GD ASCOD series. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation there are between these cousins, but it shows that GD has some expertise in the field of tracked vehicles at this class level.To stick with GD, if we want tracked, let's Frankenstein this. Give me the M10 Booker chassis, then let's stick the LAV MSHORAD turret into it, or the LAV 6 Recce suite.
I question whether we would ever commit to such a plan at any scale. Although we may need to support GDLS London more on our own in the future and that may drive purchase decisions. Will a new government make up with the Saudis?The M10, like the AJAX, are derivatives from the GD ASCOD series. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation there are between these cousins, but it shows that GD has some expertise in the field of tracked vehicles at this class level.
Personally I think we need to stay with and foster the growth of GD as a permanent supplier of CA kit because it has the only domestic plant capable of manufacturing at the scale we need.
IMHO, we need two fleets, a heavy tracked armoured fleet, and a medium wheeled fleet (and yes, yes, I know, the LAV 6.0 is bordering on heavy). I think that our medium wheeled fleet, assuming its all, on the road again, is large enough at roughly two mech brigades. I think we need an equal number of tracked IFVs and their support vehicles to equip three armour brigades (one prepositioned in Latvia and two at home for training and sustainment). It's the building of that fleet that could keep GD here occupied for a decade easily.
Or better yet, a proven tracked system like the Bradley or CV90.Personally I'd prefer to see a purpose built tracked IFV like Ajax/Ares or Puma and similar systems.
Neither of which is GD product. The aim is to get a product that will keep our one main ground systems manufacturer online for decades to come. All systems have a Day One before they are "proven."Or better yet, a proven tracked system like the Bradley or CV90.
The M10 Booker is a GD product. If we really wanted, we could try to get that or a variant built in London.Neither of which is GD product. The aim is to get a product that will keep our one main ground systems manufacturer online for decades to come. All systems have a Day One before they are "proven."
Not to pooh, pooh the M10, but it's one of the last things I'd buy well after a long list of other capabilities are satisfied.The M10 Booker is a GD product. If we really wanted, we could try to get that or a variant built in London.
Is the "two fleet" concept only inclusive of armoured (to one degree or another) vehicles?IMHO, we need two fleets, a heavy tracked armoured fleet, and a medium wheeled fleet (and yes, yes, I know, the LAV 6.0 is bordering on heavy).
It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.