Define work please, as well as active
If I was king, one of the two Corps of Armored gear we store in Europe would have been given to the Ukrainians a three years ago…
Define work please, as well as active
If I was king, one of the two Corps of Armored gear we store in Europe would have been given to the Ukrainians a three years ago…
Mainly as I think a Ukrainian ABCT doing donuts in the Kremlin looks better than a US Army one.
Plus I don’t think China wants a US controlled Russia - it would be better for everyone if Ukraine can make Russia crumble and NATO enters for a stabilizing role and rebuilding
Not quite. There are two ACSV hulls. The type 2 is the tall one for the CP, ambulance, EW, troop/cargo carrier and engineer. The type 3 is the lower hull for the MRT, fitter and MRV.
The type 3 is a heavier suspension and a bespoke back-end for external cargo, cranes, and/or winches. You can’t put a turret on any of those. As soon as you talk adding a turret, you are talking about a LAV hull. You can build a LAV on type 3 suspension.
Not quite. There are two ACSV hulls. The type 2 is the tall one for the CP, ambulance, EW, troop/cargo carrier and engineer. The type 3 is the lower hull for the MRT, fitter and MRV.
That said, the ACSV is pretty much a purpose-built, bespoke hull and the rear compartment needs modification in any event to carry whatever turret is needed, ammo racks and custom electronics. The key element is that the chassis is the same as all of the rest of the LAV/ACSV fleet.
I still ponder the usefulness of the TAPV hull for repurposing. I presume its not an issue because, AFAIK the army hasn't prioritized a suitable "cavalry" vehicle to replace them. (And I hope they do not get priority until the artillery's LRPF, GBAD and SP systems get fielded)
You keep missing the point. I don't consider modifying any of the existing ACSVs. I'm saying take the basic ACSV chassis complete with wheels, suspension, engine and driver compartment and build a module on the back designed for whatever purpose you want.
We agree totally.
I understand what you are saying. That new vehicle would be a LAV with type 3 suspension (as opposed to the current section carriers with type 1).
The Boxer has a substantially greater potential gross vehicle weight than LAV. The LAV (regardless of suspension type) cannot do what Boxer does, to include the not being able to do the plug-&-play mission module capability.
Which explains why the Dragoon LAV (US Army) seems to be rocking back on the rear suspension.
those were LAV 700? Got some Piranha V mixed in?
For those of us afflicted with terminal curiosity and with less free time then you . What is a G5 ?There was a flat deck cargo variant of the LAV. Can't find anything on the web. There was this G5 variant. I always felt these would be a excellent replacement for the M113 in it's specialty roles.
I think it's a Pontiac.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
A bigger and newer version of the M113, basically a improved "Armoured box on tracks"
It's not like they're needed on the Kuznetsov
Russian aircraft carrier crew sent to frontline in Ukraine
Russia has formed a mechanised battalion from the crew of its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
