APC Development and related topics. [Archive] - Page 2

DRG

April 7th, 2016, 06:58 PM

Don,
Should have some in here already on the USA AMPV but, the below is the newest I have. In a nutshell they're in the prototype building stage. If the below gets resolved expect this program to be fast tracked besides, the Philippine Army will modify every M113 we can send and we've been sending them and yes, they've been modifying them. These are weeks or less old from my files...
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43240.pdf
http://insidedefense.com/insider/ampv-cost-question-explained
http://gpsworld.com/kvh-delivers-tacnav-systems-for-us-armys-new-ampv-fleet/

Again sorry I missed the question in the SP/SPAA Thread. :D

I almost feel like I should do another ever popular "smilie" story-you have to admit it's been awhile but, I have to go to bed!?! :vroom:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Pat you did good to mention this because when you did I went in to check something and discovered that I had not as yet entered the SP mortar version into the OOB's, so I did.....then I fired up the game to check them and found instead of a green camo one I was seeing the winter one which is the next one on the list......so I went back and checked and everything was perfect in MOBHack but it was out by one in the game....checking the code has not yet reveiled the problem but I have discovered its bigger than I thought so without thatwe would have probably missed it until likely 5 minutes after someone else looked at it and wondered why they were getting winter Icon in August

So the release is on hold again until this gets sorted out...my job right now is to find the boundaries then work inward

So in a back hand kind of way I thank you .....it saves us a lot of aggravation to find things like this before everyone else but this one's turning into a bit of a nightmare and without you posting this I would likely have missed it:doh:

Don

DRG

April 7th, 2016, 08:54 PM

crisis averted.........problem found and solved

..but I would have missed it if I hadn't checked that SP mortar

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 8th, 2016, 02:44 AM

It is after all what I do, even if by accident!?! Sort of like the "Rabbit Hole" in reverse. Those :censor: :tur: tanks are coming to mind right about now-again!! Anyway saves me some typing (OK lots of...) on the AMPV that you've now got it in the game already-Thanks! Much easier to just track dates. If only all of it could be that easy!

Regards,
Pat
Ohhh Yeeeaahhh :capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 18th, 2016, 09:19 PM

Some things I hope to accomplish for the next patch in this area. Some I've been tracking for awhile now...

Denmark: The most ambitious APC competition has just ended along the anticipated result of tracked versus wheeled based on how the competition was setup.
http://www.janes.com/article/51105/denmark-selects-piranha-v-halts-artillery-buy

But just hot off the presses...
http://www.janes.com/article/59596/denmark-picks-five-bidders-for-artillery-procurement

INDONESIA: Now for something a little different on a very versatile platform that has performed better than oridginally thought.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/pt_pindad_of_indonesia_will_start_production_of_ba dak_6x6_armoured_with_cmi_turret_90mm_cannon_12601 161.html

RUSSIA: Unless we give defensive points on vehicles for engine location :rolleyes:, I can't justify the slot being wasted on the next. The only other change is rear access for the troops compared to the "base" unit mentioned we got in the game about 3 years ago now.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_to_upgrade_its_btr-82a_armoured_personnel_carrier_to_btr-87_tass_32403162.html

JAPAN: They are getting ready for a major upgrade to their AAV's.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/bae_systems_to_produce_new_assault_amphibious_vehi cles_aav_for_japan_30804163.html

USA: An interesting change in philosophy but, one I can understand given they'll be around for quite some time.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/bae_systems_to_transform_us_armys_bradley_m3_vehic les_to_m2_40704164.html

We've gone around the world so this should be good for now. Have a great night/or day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp

April 20th, 2016, 12:49 AM

USA: An interesting change in philosophy but, one I can understand given they'll be around for quite some time.

I would think the fact Bradleys have racked up more armour kills than the Abrams might have something to do with it.

Suhiir

April 20th, 2016, 05:55 AM

I would think the fact Bradleys have racked up more armour kills than the Abrams might have something to do with it.
Well ... there are a LOT more Bradleys then Abrams, and since they're capable of defeating tanks with TOW ATGMs it sort of make sense they'd have more kills.

luigim

April 22nd, 2016, 03:16 AM

I think that Armata IFV chassis has the same protection of the MBT but in the game it's not

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 25th, 2016, 10:28 PM

Tracking these closely...

First good data look at the T-15 BMP with update.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/uralvagonzavod_to_deliver_t-15_infantry_fighting_vehicles_to_russian_defense_m inistry_52504162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/t-15_bmp_armata_aifv_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehi cle_technical_data_sheet_pictures_video.html

BOOMERANG update Don and I have been watching this one for years now. There at one point it seemed like this would be fielded much sooner but, due to economic and technical issues it didn't get off the ground and was in danger of being canceled. This spawned the BTR-82A which is probably Russia's best APC in the field.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_bumerang_8x8_armored_fighting_vehicle_manu factured_by_vpk_will_finish_trials_in_2016_tass_12 404163.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/bumerang_btr_8x8_boomerang_armored_vehicle_personn el_carrier_technical_data_sheet_specifications_inf ormation_pictures_video_intelligence_identificatio n_.html

Just reading my daily newspapers. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 13th, 2016, 04:24 AM

It is important to be watchful of the the words written into the references used in equipment. I see a growing excitement over certain Russian equipment in this case the T-15 ARMATA APC/IFV. The words that seem to be passed over by some readers in these refs posted are "...based upon..." which by definition is the same "as modified from" etc. etc. The most obvious difference between the T-15 and the T-14 ARMATA MBT is in the engine placement which is front mounted on the T-15 and rear mounted on the T-14 MBT. There will be armor differences as well which are well covered in what we have already available to us on the web. It should be further noted that the T-15 WILL NOT be the main APC/IFV of the Russian Army but will be used instead by more specialized troops. That distinction will fall to the Kurganets-25 and our "old friend" the Boomerang, now more clearly defined as the BUMERANG K-16 APC and K-17 IFV. This discussion would also cover Israels NAMER. Which is about to receive in typical Israeli secretive fashion, a new companion APC/IFV, the EITAN 8x8 which is a major departure from it's normal "tracked armor" frame of mind. They've successfully kept this vehicle "under wraps" obviously for sometime. From what I have thus far, we could be looking at one of, if not, the most advanced and protected APC's out there. Again look at the embolden word in the last sentence. The JANE'S ref I believe was the first to note the EITAN which is included below.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/first_picture_of_the_new_kurganets-25_russian_armored_infantry_fighting_vehicle.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/kurganets-25_kurganets_aifv_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehic le_technical_data_sheet_pictures_video.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/new_version_of_russian_k-16_and_k-17_bumerang_were_unveiled_during_military_parade_i n_smolino_10208162.html
http://www.janes.com/article/62755/israel-unveils-first-wheeled-apc
http://www.defence24.com/423491,eitan-unexpected-successor-of-the-m-113-vehicle-mass-and-armour-main-advantages#

It would be my hope that we "slow down" just a bit and let the information flow. There is enough equipment that is out there NOW that we don't even have in the game or for that matter has even appeared in any of the threads as of yet.

Trust me I have many files on my system to cover the above. All I'll say is "when I can I will" I just can't do it now and it kills me to know this could be my third year that I probably can't submit to the Patch Thread even if only to be a PITA to Don. ;)

I just feel sometimes we're rushing ahead to meet "certain expectations" only to find as we've discovered not that many years ago, we had to clean up the OOB's of equipment that never got off the ground for various reasons, or were only prototypes or test bed platforms. And if "properly" entered and fielded, we had to modify them in light of newer and better information because they just weren't that "battlefield game changer" everyone thought they'd be when put to the test or they were used beyond "kicking the tires".

Every new car you'd like to buy looks REAL GOOD until you've owned it for awhile, it's the one you don't like quite as much but are wondering about none the less, that'll more then likely be the better car for you. We would call that a "gut feeling" too often ignored with regrets later.

Do you understand where I'm trying to come from here?

Ask yourself why I used the above, from a job I disliked due to industry practices after I retired, but if there's enough of you "it looks REAL GOOD" people out here, just maybe I should reconsider-so I paraphrase-Want to buy a car? :D ;) :p !!!

Yep-Still Tracking this equipment and development in my own way.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 13th, 2016, 10:18 PM

......... This discussion would also cover Israels NAMER. Which is about to receive in typical Israeli secretive fashion, a new companion APC/IFV, the EITAN 8x8 which is a major departure from it's normal "tracked armor" frame of mind. They've successfully kept this vehicle "under wraps" obviously for sometime. From what I have thus far, we could be looking at one of, if not, the most advanced and protected APC's out there. Again look at the embolden word in the last sentence. The JANE'S ref I believe was the first to note the EITAN which is included below. Regards,
Pat
:capt:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14404&stc=1&d=1471141359
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14403&stc=1&d=1471141093

DRG

August 13th, 2016, 10:45 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 14th, 2016, 12:11 AM

Amen to that.

It seems since the Ukrainian Crisis started and we entered into the "Chilled/or Chilly(?) War" all this equipment is coming out of the woodwork, though in regards to the Russian ARMATA Package that's a long "on again off again" program going back to the "BLACK EAGLE". We respond by moving up the M2A2 SEP V3 program, UK with the CHALLENGER upgrades with Germany, France etc. etc. responding in kind. Australia is practically revamping their entire Army and it's equipment from an Infantry based one to one that'll be more mobile and Armor heavy. Every current truck in their inventory will be replaced by about 4-5 variants of the German MAN family of trucks within the next five years or less. It's the largest military truck deal made in a very long time.

We are in a period now worldwide of the greatest introduction of new equipment we've seen probably since the Cold War. And for us that'll present it's own set of issues which is why I'm being a little more cautious than normal and spending more time tracking and researching many of these pieces of equipment and trying to sift through the data to find the "commonalities" among the many refs out to properly establish as solid a baseline for any given piece of equipment becoming available to us.

Quite frankly, I don't want to spend the next fifteen years "fixing" equipment when I can be playing with it in a game instead.

It's just where my "heads at" right now.

The EITAN Icon looks real good!

Sometimes I wish I had another "me" I could pull out of a box to help me here, however, and I hear you, that thought scares the crap out of me as well let alone what how CINCLANTHOME would feel about that!?!

Anyway Savannah calls in the morning where a little R&R and a couple of "pints" of SMITHWICKS in the evening should set the world right again! ;)

Enjoy your weekend everyone and take care.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 14th, 2016, 07:23 AM

The EITAN Icon looks real good!

:capt:

Thanks...... once some actual dimensions are published I can adjust the size to match..even a photo of it parked beside something else would be helpful but for now that's "close enough"

scorpio_rocks

August 14th, 2016, 09:55 AM

Nice short video of the Eitan 8x8 HERE (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/2016/08/01/israel-unveils-wheeled-actively-protected-armored-carrier/87907090/)
(unfortunately not driven past anything we know the size of)

jp10

August 14th, 2016, 12:31 PM

In the pic is a good view of what appears to be a M2 MG, length of about 1,654 mm (65.1 in). Import it into a photo program (I;m away from my PC atm) and use that as a measure for a rough guess. From looking at the two humans I would guess that from the driver to the beginning of the two rear extensions (just above rear wheel) would be about M113 sized but much taller.

DRG

August 14th, 2016, 07:05 PM

Suhiir

August 21st, 2016, 01:17 AM

Little update on the new USMC ACV.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/eurosatory/2016/06/20/prototypes-marine-corps-new-amphibious-combat-vehicle-coming-together/86131020/
I give the BAE variant the edge because they took into account the 13-man USMC rifle squad when designing their vehicle. The SAIC version only carries 11 passengers.
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newssaic-wins-1215m-contract-to-support-usmcs-acv-emd-phase-4842337

And in other news it looks like the aging AAV (formerly LVT-7) is getting yet another upgrade.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/16/marines-aav-amphibious-assault-vehicle-survivability-upgrade-saic-quantico/81869442/

DRG

August 21st, 2016, 07:21 AM

Suhiir

August 21st, 2016, 09:55 AM

And in other news it looks like the aging AAV (formerly LVT-7) is getting yet another upgrade.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/16/marines-aav-amphibious-assault-vehicle-survivability-upgrade-saic-quantico/81869442/

Now in with survivability set to 7 and a new pic. We'll deal with side armour changes later

Survivability 7 is probably a bit high given that the AAV doesn't have a 'V' hull and the floor armor is still only aluminium. But that and any armor upgrades can wait.

DRG

August 21st, 2016, 09:59 AM

Suhiir

August 21st, 2016, 07:53 PM

Now in with survivability set to 7 and a new pic. We'll deal with side armour changes later

Survivability 7 is probably a bit high given that the AAV doesn't have a 'V' hull and the floor armor is still only aluminium. But that and any armor upgrades can wait.

They claim MRAP equivalence so it's a 7
Since when has anyone believed manufactuerer claims :D

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 21st, 2016, 08:24 PM

She does look "beefed up" compared to the standard AAV. But here's what the USMC has to say about it. Looks like I spotted some shock mounting in the mechanical part (Don't think they're the "mains" though?) of the video. We live and die by that stuff on the boats.
http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/695458/marine-corps-demonstrates-upgraded-aav/

You will find in this next video from SAIC one of the IED tests conducted on the AAV SU which is it's official designation as noted in the USMC ref above.
Already has a name isn't that special? :rolleyes:
http://www.saic.com/about/about-saic/feature-stories/aav-su/

Did my part to pack out Mom today, chilling out and watching some closing ceremonies. Take Care!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

August 21st, 2016, 08:43 PM

You will find in this next video from SAIC one of the IED tests conducted on the AAV SU which is it's official designation as noted in the USMC ref above.
Already has a name isn't that special? :rolleyes:
Regards,
Pat

That's what I've called it too..............

Suhiir

August 21st, 2016, 10:48 PM

I suspect it'll wind up being AAVP SU or AAV SUP for the APC variant, 'E' for the engineer, and 'C' for command.

MarkSheppard

August 30th, 2016, 09:36 PM

Tracking some new Chinese APC/IFV developments

Derivatives of ZBD-04 IFV (Unit 740)

Basically, China realized that once they'd fulfilled the need for the PLA Marine Corps to have a heavy amphibian IFV in the ZBD-04; the same chassis could be used for a land-based IFV; resulting in:

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbd_08.htm

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/15/content_6682644.htm

ZBD-04A / ZBD-08 AIFV (Name is unclear, sources differ)

Which essentially is the ZBD-04 product improved to:

Hull:
Frontal: 30mm AP-I @ 1000m
Sides: 14.5mm AP-I @ 200m
Rear: 7.62mm AP

at the cost of greater weight (4 metric tons heavier than the 04) and only being able to swim rivers and lakes; as opposed to the 04's sea-amphibious capabilitity.

Some derivatives of this vehicle are showing up in C3I roles, etc.

Recently, ANOTHER prototype showed up on the Chinese Internet (TM).

http://china-defense.blogspot.hk/2016/08/chinese-airborne-infantry-fighting.html?m=1

It appears to be part of the developmental process for their "second generation" Airborne IFV to replace the ZBD-03; and they have abandoned the 100mm/30mm coaxial armament for 100mm/7.62mm coaxial in this prototype.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 17th, 2016, 04:06 AM

Israel must be releasing/or confirming information on the EITAN 8x8 already out there, so by way of an update...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/eitan_8x8_apc_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_t echnical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_ 10208163.html

Also something I've been keeping my eye on...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/ofek.htm

The above gives me a "warm fuzzy" on the "The Great MERKAVA troop carrying debate." I believe we settled on 6 fully equipped troops. It also confirms what we found as the high number of 10 troops at the time as well they can carry. And before someone gets a little "nuts" over this :deadhorse: topic, we realized then that from MERKAVA Mk III on, the tanks hulls were modified from the Mk II to allow for more space by increasing length and storage efficiency of ammo etc. etc..

This was a VERY HOT topic that would cause a person to receive the "death penalty" from both forums as I recall.

22 and a wake up - life is good!!

Have a good night - ready wrap up my work week later this afternoon/night! :jam:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

September 17th, 2016, 08:23 AM

If anyone sees length and width stats for the Eitan let me know

Nevermind.....found it ( looking for a second source now but the proportions look good now compare to the top photo I have )

Dimensions of the Eitan
Length - 8.35m
Height - 2.62m
Width - 3.29m

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14457&stc=1&d=1474116800

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 5th, 2016, 01:00 AM

AUSA 2016 gives me the perfect excuse to post something before try to beat out "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" just driving on the "right side" of the road should be interesting enough!?! :cool:

Anyway...
1. USA to receive its first up gunned STRYKER prototypes. Still nothing definite out there if this is to include ATGW capability.
http://www.janes.com/article/64277/ausa-2016-first-upgunned-stryker-systems-to-be-delivered-in-december
http://www.janes.com/article/64341/ausa-2016-army-adding-lethality-to-stryker-fleet-delaying-cannon

2. BAE has unveiled it's next Gen BRADLEY.
http://www.janes.com/article/64295/ausa-2016-bae-systems-showcases-potential-next-gen-bradley
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2016-bae-unveils-next-generation-bradley-conc/
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/10/04/BAE-Systems-displays-next-gen-Bradley-Fighting-Vehicle/8701475590307/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

October 29th, 2016, 11:26 PM

First possible photos of 30mm STRYKER and a designation and name:

XM1296 Dragoon.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-rolls-out-upgunned-stryker-30m-autocannon-vs-russians/

Army Rolls Out Upgunned Stryker: 30m Autocannon Vs. Russians
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on October 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM
Army photo
Prototype XM1296 Infantry Carrier Vehicle – Dragoon.

Today, after 18 months of urgent work, the Army rolled out its first upgunned Stryker vehicle, nicknamed Dragoon. The armored eight-wheel-drive troop transport, built by General Dynamics and normally armed with no more than a 0.50 calibre (12.7 millimeter) machinegun in an unprotected mount, has been rebuilt with an armored turret containing a 30 mm quickfiring cannon.

That’s enough firepower, the Army computes, to dispose of other lightly armored vehicles like the Russian BMP troop carrier. If the Russians invade the Baltics, the Stryker Dragoon can’t stop their heavy tanks, but it can thin out their scout vehicles and transports, allowing American M1 tanks to focus their 120 mm firepower on the heaviest targets.

Currently, the heaviest US force stationed permanently in Europe is the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, aka the 2nd Dragoons, mounted in Strykers. The other unit is the 173rd Airborne Brigade, a light infantry unit with no armored vehicles at all — although the Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower program is feverishly developing a light tank to support the light infantry. No heavy tank formations are home-based in Europe at all, though brigades now rotate through on a regular basis to deter the Russians.

Feeling understandably undergunned, the 2nd Cavalry made an urgent request last year for 81 Strykers with more powerful weapons. The new vehicle derives its nickname from the regiment’s.

“Dragoon” is an appropriate term for Stryker forces. More mobile and better protected than foot troops, they’re still nowhere near as tough as M1 tank or the M2 Bradley troop carrier. Like the original dragoons in the black powder and musket days, Stryker units are a hybrid that ride to the battle but then dismount to fight on foot in battle.

Despite intense initial criticism, Strykers proved successful in Iraq as a highly mobile reserve. Their 20-plus-ton 8×8 vehicles could move them more rapidly by road than 35-plus-ton tracked Bradleys, consuming less fuel and fewer spare parts in the process. (The 2nd Cav showed off this same mobility with an epic 1,100-mile “Dragoon Ride” across the threatened states of Eastern Europe). But the Strykers were also heavy enough to endure roadside bomb blasts much better than Humvees.

In Iraq, Strykers only needed machineguns because the insurgent enemy had no armored vehicles of his own. The Army had tried installing heavier weapons on Strykers, from a 105 cannon on the Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System) — the weight and recoil were just too much — to a TOW anti-tank missile on the Stryker ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided Missile). But these weapons took up so much space and weight that the Strykers carrying them had no room to carry infantry, so only a few were bought to serve as specialized support vehicles. The vast majority of Strykers remained equipped with 12.7 mm or smaller guns.

As the US military reoriented anxiously to Europe and the heavily armored Russian army, however, 12.7 mm looked awfully small. With this prototype Dragoon and its 30 mm cannon, the Army’s well on its way to fixing that. With the right airbursting ammunition, the 30 mm weapon might even take out low-flying aircraft. In parallel, to defeat Russian drones, the Army is experimenting with a low-powered anti-aircraft laser, also mounted on a Stryker. Once derided by heavy-tank hardliners as an underarmored dead end, the Stryker now seems a versatile and vital part of the Army’s future.

The full text of the announcement from Program Executive Office – Ground Combat Systems follows below.

Army screencap
Stryker Dragoon, side view
NEWS RELEASE: First Stryker prototype with enhanced firepower delivered to U.S. Army

Sterling Heights, Mich. (Oct. 27, 2016) – This morning, the Army celebrated the delivery of the first prototype Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle outfitted with a 30 mm cannon for increased lethality. This is the first of eight prototype vehicles upgraded with significant lethality capabilities to address an emerging capability gap in the European theater of operations.

“Not only does this provide improved firepower, it also enhances vehicle survivability while providing stand-off against potential threat weapons,” said Maj. Gen. David G. Bassett, the Army’s program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems. “This symbolic event illustrates the Army’s commitment to meeting the needs of our Soldiers in harm’s way – ahead of schedule and on budget.”

Last July, the Army approved a Directed Requirement to increase lethality for 81 Stryker vehicles for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to provide Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) with direct fire support to its mounted and dismounted infantry. This led to an accelerated acquisition effort to integrate an unmanned turret with a 30mm cannon on to a Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle. Fielding of this increased capability is required by 2018.

“Future operations will take place concurrently in the air and on the ground, increasingly in urban settings, integrating capabilities from the domains of sea, space and cyberspace,” said Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, the Army’s vice chief of staff. “This environment will place a premium on unmanned systems, lethal technologies, and rapid maneuver capabilities this Stryker system exemplifies.”

The upgrade from funding receipt to prototype delivery spanned a scant 15-months and included design, build and integration of a Kongsberg MCT-30mm Weapon System, remotely operated, unmanned turret, a new fully integrated Commander’s Station, upgraded driveline componentry and hull modifications.

The upgraded Stryker vehicle will be known as the, Dragoon, the name of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, and we recently assigned the nomenclature XM1296 Infantry Carrier Vehicle – Dragoon.

The prototype vehicles will begin a series of industry “shakedown” testing prior to industry contractually delivering the vehicles to the Army in December. Government testing on the platforms begins in January 2017.

“The insights gleaned from this urgent effort will be applied towards planning the fleet-wide lethality program for the Stryker, and is another example of how we are developing combat systems in concert with the Army’s Operating Concept and Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy,” added Bassett.

In addition, the Army has provided programmatic direction to initiate the first two elements of the Stryker Fleet Lethality strategy — providing an under-armor Javelin capability for the Stryker and improving the capabilities of the Stryker Anti-Tank Guided Missile vehicle to better locate and engage targets via networked fires.

MarkSheppard

October 29th, 2016, 11:31 PM

Here's the PDF datasheet for the Kongsberg MCT-30 mm Weapon System turret chosen for the DRAGOON:

http://www.ksat.no/~/media/KPS/Datasheets/PROTECTOR%20MCT-30.ashx

Main armament: MK44 30mm Bushmaster Automatic Cannon
Ammunition handling: Linkless ammunition feeding: 2 x 75 ready rounds

NATO standard 30x173mm ammunition (AP, HE, TP, PABM)
Programmable Air Burst Ammunition
Reload from under armor

Coaxial gun: 7.62 mm, 600 ready rounds
Smoke grenades: 2 x 4 tubes (Optional)

Sight system: Sight includes: Day Camera, Thermal Imager and Laser Range Finder (LRF)
Identification: ID Range > 3000 meters (standard vehicle target 2.3 x 2.3 m)

Turret movement: 360 ° movement in azimuth
-10 ° to + 45 ° elevation
up to + 70 ° elevation (Optional)
Stabilization: Fully stabilized including point stabilization.

Protection level:
Baseline protection is STANAG level 1.
Add on Armor up to level 4 (Optional).

Other options:
Missile system
Threat detection systems
Commanders Independent Weapon Station
Active Protection System

shahadi

October 29th, 2016, 11:55 PM

Great!

We've been talking about an 8x8...pitfalls, advantanges, etc. I'm interested to hear more about how the Dragoon with supporting fire vehicles are intended to pick off scout vehicles and other light vehicles so the Abrams can concentrate on Russian heavies. We do this in our game, save Abram fires to take on Russian tanks.

So, I took a Stryker and put a Bushmaster 30mm in weapon slot #1. Now, I need a pic (would be nice to have.) with the new turret.

Thanks MarkSheppard good job!

=====

Suhiir

October 30th, 2016, 04:00 AM

First possible photos of 30mm STRYKER and a designation and name:

XM1296 Dragoon.
So basically the US Army has invented a LAV-30?

DRG

October 30th, 2016, 12:19 PM

Wip...........

DRG

October 30th, 2016, 12:33 PM

Suhiir

October 31st, 2016, 05:23 AM

shahadi

October 31st, 2016, 06:45 AM

Great!

So, I took a Stryker and put a Bushmaster 30mm in weapon slot #1. Now, I need a pic (would be nice to have.) with the new turret.

Thanks MarkSheppard good job!

=====

It needs a weapon like the German 30mm with sabot for ground work, The Bushmaster in the game now is set up for aircraft use
Check the USMC OOB, the EFVP was going to be armed with a 30mm Bushmaster and I believe Weapon# 77 is based on the German one.

The German 30mm and the 30mm Mauser, the USMC 30mm Bushmaster, and the USA 30mm M230 ChGun and Bushmaster 30mm, are all weapon class 19.

The USA 30mm does not have Sabot values as the German 30mm MK 30-2 and the USMC Bushmaster.

However, the problem I encounter is that the weapon cannot be changed from a different OOB. If I buy the USA Stryker, I don't know how to load weapon 77 or 169, USMC and Germany OOBs respectively onto the USA Stryker.

Now, the USA 25mm M242 CG 81 has sabot values and I could simply load that weapon. Or, I could load the Bushmaster in weapon slot #1 and give it sabot ammo, roll the dice and see what happens.

=====

Mobhack

October 31st, 2016, 09:02 AM

In Mobhack, open the OOB with the weapon you want to copy from. Navigate to it on the weapons tab, and then use the copy function. That weapon is now in the paste buffer.

Now open up your target OOB, go to the weapons tab and find a free weapon slot (if there is one - if not, you are stuffed). Paste the weapon you just copied into that slot. Save weapon data before moving off. Now open your modified APC in the units tab, find the cannon (probably slot 1) and change its ID to the slot number you used to paste the copied data into. Change ammo to suit. Save OOB and exit Mobhack. Job done (though you should run the points calculator on the resulting OOB).

shahadi

October 31st, 2016, 09:56 AM

Suhiir

October 31st, 2016, 10:38 AM

Any unit, and it's weapons, used in a scenario has to be in the OOB a player is using or you get an error; i.e. a generic unit placeholder and very odd (if any) stats.

jp10

October 31st, 2016, 11:33 AM

...Slightly off topic I see US modified Phalanx ship missile defence system for ground use, recalibrated to intercept incoming mortar rounds, would assume cant cover much of an area.

Many of these concepts are driven by current problems on the battlefield. IFV's that are used as close support against urban defenses more than anti-vehicle, single shot anti-ambush RPG protection...etc. A Phalanx type anti-artillery defense is probably a Fire Base, fixed point smaller area type of concept. Put it in the center of a FOB and let it worry about the random mortar attack.

shahadi

October 31st, 2016, 02:36 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 31st, 2016, 04:01 PM

Don is it safe to assume you have the USA 30mm STRYKER for the game handled for the next patch? First units were to ready by Dec. 2016 according to JANE's. I would personally use Jan. 2017. Haven't seen anything anything to this point to disrupt that time frame. The 30mm version being in limited numbers will also be up armored slightly from the current ones in the OOB as applique armor is to be added. Also they all will be SYRKYER's with V-Hulls so there should be a modifier for crew survival possibly considered.

Also the current in game STRYKER's should reflect the same starting about Jun. 2014 or Jan. 2015 (Same for the USMC for their LAV's were modified as well with V-Hulls I thought around this time frame as well.) if memory serves for a "new/modified" unit to be added to the OOB.

If you've got this one, I'll post all the refs I have for these units and clean out my APC folder//work-list of this unit. Please let me know at your convenience.

ICON looks great!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

NEVER MIND:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/kongsberg_protector_30mm_remote_weapon_station_sel ected_to_be_mounted_on_us_stryker_armored_12312152 .html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/general_dynamics_secured_a_$75_million_to_integrat e_a_30mm_cannon_to_the_stryker_program_32001162.ht ml
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_army_awarded_general_dynamics_$329_m_contract_f or_the_stryker_infantry_vehicle_upgrade_50905164.h tml

An issue I'll still be tracking for the USA/USMC Light/Heavy Armor:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/u.s._has_chosen_israeli_iron_fist_active_protectio n_system_to_secure_armoured_personnel_carrier_1090 6162.html

The USMC LAV-AT new turret:
We had some debate about this vehicle when I submitted info to support it's continued fighting status for the USMC. It appears the newer version (UNIT 018 LAV-ATA2) will need a date modifier based on this next ref. something along the lines of Jun. 2016 but, I think Jan.2017 as a better date to allow for our "swag" based on the completion date of this contract. We do get a better look at the turret though and it has plenty of smoke grenade launchers as well as being better protected then the EMERSON Turret also with a better FCS as well. Also UNIT 027 LAV-ATA1 end date will need to extended out to match the new start date for the above UNIT 018.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/raytheon_won_a_$30mn_contract_to_provide_us_marine _corps_with_anti-tank_variant_turrets_51808161.html

Not as much as I thought, which already means I've posted the rest in this thread.

Suhiir

October 31st, 2016, 06:32 PM

By the way, if you look at the 30mm Bushmaster in the USMC OOB it in fact has sabot ratings.

The USMC LAV-AT new turret:

We had some debate about this vehicle when I submitted info to support it's continued fighting status for the USMC. It appears the newer version (UNIT 018 LAV-ATA2) will need a date modifier based on this next ref. something along the lines of Jun. 2016 but, I think Jan.2017 as a better date to allow for our "swag" based on the completion date of this contract. We do get a better look at the turret though and it has plenty of smoke grenade launchers as well as being better protected then the EMERSON Turret also with a better FCS as well. Also UNIT 027 LAV-ATA1 end date will need to extended out to match the new start date for the above UNIT 018.
While the dates could be changed it would be cosmetic as in WinSPMBT ATGMs don't use "Fire Control" or "Range Finder" ratings. If they did every infantry ATGM team would need them and become much more expensive.

DRG

October 31st, 2016, 06:56 PM

DRG

October 31st, 2016, 07:19 PM

Any unit, and it's weapons, used in a scenario has to be in the OOB a player is using or you get an error; i.e. a generic unit placeholder and very odd (if any) stats.

In Mobhack, open the OOB with the weapon you want to copy from. Navigate to it on the weapons tab, and then use the copy function. That weapon is now in the paste buffer.

Now open up your target OOB, go to the weapons tab and find a free weapon slot (if there is one - if not, you are stuffed). Paste the weapon you just copied into that slot. Save weapon data before moving off. Now open your modified APC in the units tab, find the cannon (probably slot 1) and change its ID to the slot number you used to paste the copied data into. Change ammo to suit. Save OOB and exit Mobhack. Job done (though you should run the points calculator on the resulting OOB).

May I subsequently distribute a scenario with modified APC as described above without distributing the modified OOB?

=====

That is what I had thought. So, in designing a scenario, I am left with two alternatives use the USA 25mm M242 with sabot values or load the Bushmaster 30mm and give it sabot ammo.

Using these two options, I can publish a scenario without distributing a modified OOB.

=====

OK I was waiting for someone to suggest the obvious but I see that isn't happening ( everything but....)

Maybe a few others might pay attention as well----you're going to LEARN SOMETHING about the game

Buy your US Army Striker........it won't have the proper Icon until next patch but you seemed determined to add it to a scenario anyway........

Change to USMC...

OK so far ?

Now........go to the editor menu and press the " Change the current units data" button.

Now click on weapon 1.... Now...... remember the game now thinks you are USMC because you changed to USMC.....so it gives you the USMC weapon list ( !! )

Enter 77 for the weapon ( TA Da !! .........30mm Bushmaster complete with sabot pen data ) then add the ammo you want......this thing only carries 2x 75 rounds and with autocannot it's bursts so 12 HE and 13 Sabot is what it gets ( still under review along with how many troops it can carry )

Go back to the purchase screen,,,,,, change back to US army and save and this is what you will see
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14476&stc=1&d=1477955942

DRG

October 31st, 2016, 07:47 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,or load the Bushmaster 30mm and give it sabot ammo.

=====

No.......

If you did it that way you COULD give it sabot ammo.,,,,,,,,,,useless sabot ammo with zero for pen because as I said the US 30mm Bushmaster was set up as an air use weapon and air use weapons don't use sabot ammo so it has no sabot pen set up so you could give it 200 rounds of sabot and every one would have the same effect as firing marshmallows at the enemy

shahadi

October 31st, 2016, 09:07 PM

OK I was waiting for someone to suggest the obvious but I see that isn't happening ( everything but....)

Maybe a few others might pay attention as well----you're going to LEARN SOMETHING about the game

Buy your US Army Striker........it won't have the proper Icon until next patch but you seemed determined to add it to a scenario anyway........

Change to USMC...

OK so far ?

Now........go to the editor menu and press the " Change the current units data" button.

Now click on weapon 1.... Now...... remember the game now thinks you are USMC because you changed to USMC.....so it gives you the USMC weapon list ( !! )

Enter 77 for the weapon ( TA Da !! .........30mm Bushmaster complete with sabot pen data ) then add the ammo you want......this thing only carries 2x 75 rounds and with autocannot it's bursts so 12 HE and 13 Sabot is what it gets ( still under review along with how many troops it can carry )

Go back to the purchase screen,,,,,, change back to US army and save and this is what you will see
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14476&stc=1&d=1477955942

Voila. Excellent tutorial. Only thing I used the Modify the Current Unit's Data.

Now, in the Editor when I right click on the unit, and select Information, the 50 cal TMG not the Bushmaster is loaded in weapon slot 1.

=====

DRG

October 31st, 2016, 11:18 PM

Now, in the Editor when I right click on the unit, and select Information, the 50 cal TMG not the Bushmaster is loaded in weapon slot 1.

=====

The information screen is reading the original unit data in the OOB not the modified unit you created..........it's always been that way

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 1st, 2016, 12:11 AM

Suhiir

November 1st, 2016, 12:41 AM

Go back to the purchase screen,,,,,, change back to US army and save and this is what you will see
Slick workaround for an OOB that has filled weapon slots AND allows people to use the default OOBs!

Who said Canuks weren't smart?

DRG

November 1st, 2016, 07:16 AM

That little trick has been known for a couple of decades, apparently not as commonly as I assumed. It was more useful to scenario designers in the original SSI game with it's much smaller unit pool to draw from. Our expanded OOB's don't require SD's be quite as creative

IronDuke99

November 1st, 2016, 08:46 PM

Don my apologies but, now I realize why Jan. 2017 was stuck in my head, should've reread it before posting. However I think (Post #168) might be useful and the ones before it as well. Mostly to ensure we're using the right TOW II for those units. As noted then as being tested (3 yrs ago.) the TOW2 ITAS and AERO is now in use on the LAV-ATA1 for at least a year or more now from I can gather.

This next I've been tracking for over 8 yrs. now(Post #259[and the UK chose an APC that it turned down under the FRES Program. The [B]BOXER is back however this will still require some additional tracking. FRES collapsed in 2008 when the final contract between the UK and GD for the PIRANHA 5 couldn't be settled upon. The BOXER was "rumored" to have a close second at the time. The new program was decided upon in Sep. 2015 and here it's only a year later and we as noted above, the BOXER wins. With BREXIT in play and Germany being seen as the "De Facto" leader of the EU and the UK wanting out of the EU on favorable terms and buying 800 units, it would seem some accommodation might be made in the UK's favor-but that's just "Conspiracy Theory" stuff!?! Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/uk_has_selected_the_german_boxer_as_future_8x8_arm oured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_for_british_army_1 1710161.html

If you think I was good in picking the BOXER back in the day when FRES was starting up, wait until you see what gets posted in the MBT Thread in a day or two!?! And right on time as well. ;)

Anyway have a good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Interesting. Somewhere on here I posted a link to the whole sorry (and hugely expensive) FRES story. A vast amount of money indeed for the rather large and heavy, but otherwise underwhelming Ajax and the more or less off the shelf Boxer.

Someone still needs to tell me exactly what Ajax can do that Warrior 2000 cannot (both are about the same size and weight and have the same weapons system, although I think Ajax can swim). About the only thing I can think of is that Ajax can be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (Cavalry and Royal Tank Regt) thus adding tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl...

One factual error in the link. The UK Pound Sterling has not "collapsed", or anything like it, since Brexit, despite the wishful thinking of assorted remaniacs and remoaners.

The largest British services website was about 80% in favour of leaving the EU on a site poll the day before the vote.

I'm also a little puzzled why a 60,000 man British Army that will have 250-300 Warrior 2000 really needs 800 of these Boxer 8x8's. Given the constraints in the UK Defence budget, and the need for more spending in other areas, especially the Royal Navy, I would have thought an order for 400 would have been enough for now. Boxer should be air portable for the British, but Ajax is not unless the RAF C-17 Globemaster's can carry one, but even if it can the RAF has only eight or nine of those aircraft.

Suhiir

November 2nd, 2016, 02:09 AM

Well the ability to swim would be awfully handy for river crossings.

Besides the Ajax has undoubtedly has some basic tech upgrades over the Warrior 2000. Probably things like computerized fuel injection and such. And there is something of a need to keep the defense industry, and it's workers, employed. No need to feed it with both hands mind you, but you really don't want it to wither away completely because you will need it in the future.

IronDuke99

November 2nd, 2016, 05:22 AM

In the case of the Ajax, most of that Defence Industry work is not in the UK.

Suhiir

November 2nd, 2016, 07:21 AM

In the case of the Ajax, most of that Defence Industry work is not in the UK.
Ah so ...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 6th, 2016, 08:57 PM

The +'s and -'s of the UK AJAX Program. This very simply breaks downs the issues associated with the AJAX as discussed elsewhere, while still providing and confirming other data we're seeing on the type. Most useful here are the pictures that show AJAX in it's different armored configurations, a nice plus for this somewhat controversial piece of equipment.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ajax-reconnaissance-tank-apc/

Taking the World view...Things I'm watching
Czech Republic: BMP-2 coming out, CV-90 coming in.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbae-and-vop-cz-partner-for-czech-republics-bmp-2-ifv-replacement-programme-4893442
http://www.defence24.com/367643,cv-90-ifv-to-replace-the-czech-bmp-2-platform

Denmark: Increasing interoperability of it's CV 9035 fleet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/danish_cv90_infantry_fighting_vehicles_to_be_equip ped_with_bae_battle_management_systems_72510161.ht ml

France: The venerable Renault VAB has just celebrated 40 years of service. :birthday: (C'mon you thought I wouldn't do it!?!)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/the_french_renault_vab_armoured_vehicle_in_service _since_40_years_12010162.html

Indonesia: The Marines want a new toy and the Ukraine might just have the one they want.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_indust ry/indonesia_marine_corps_could_purchase_new_version_ of_btr-4_amphibious_armoured_from_ukraine_12409162.html

Got rid of a couple and keeping a couple. Have a great morning or evening based on your sith-e-ation (Work with me here and just say it fast!?!)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

IronDuke99

November 7th, 2016, 08:13 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 7th, 2016, 09:05 PM

Well again official, USA received it's first prototype European theatre AOR STRYKER with 30mm. The video link at the end of the article is interesting also on the couple of other systems it talks about. Like DID this is another reason I like this site as it provides links (As highlighted.) with the articles.
Their is some insight as you listen and LOOK at the video on the topic at hand and about the future BRADLEY.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industr y/first_stryker_vehicle_prototype_with_30mm_cannon_d elivered_to_us_army_50211161.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

shahadi

November 7th, 2016, 09:11 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 7th, 2016, 09:39 PM

What they've done was basically cut the old roof off and replaced it with a slightly higher welded roof one, to minimize the adding on of the turret and two, not to impact troop capacity of 9 armed and equipped troops. And they even have air conditioning not for the troops but for the advanced FCS and associated electronics suite (Effective range @ 3000yds vs. just under 1900yds w/12.7mm.) plus the mechanical systems for the drive unit of the turret.
One of many...
http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20161028/NEWS/161029617

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

November 24th, 2016, 01:22 PM

And to further confuse things apparently the USMC wants to replace the AAV series vehicles with an ACV1.2, a larger variant (13 passengers, better armor, possibly a LAV-25 type turret) of the ACV1.1. The problem is that while the ACV1.1 can handle rivers it can't handle ocean surf, the ACV1.2 will be able to.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/bae-unveils-1st-amphibious-combat-vehicle-for-marines/

As I mentioned elsewhere one of the problems with replacing the AAV series vehicles with ACV's is the USMC will require apx. 25% more sealift then an equivalent sized MEU equipped with AAVs. But more ships will at least make the Gator Navy (the popular term for the amphibious warfare branch of the US Navy) happy.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 10th, 2016, 01:34 PM

What does it take to build a new Amphibious capable APC when you don't really already a "modern" one to work with? Well Poland is doing just that now. You'll find (If you've followed the discussion a few years back.) a couple of old programs mentioned that were somewhat contested as they have them or not. It was established as - not. A very good read on the thinking, planning and how to we get there to the final options (Maybe.) Gotta get ready for work so here you go...
http://www.defence24.com/501697,polish-borsuk-ifv-unveiled-two-variants-of-the-new-vehicle

Well it has a name so that's always a good start-well again maybe. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

December 10th, 2016, 08:48 PM

Yeah, amphibious APCs take the age old tank problem of balancing armor, weapons, and speed to a whole new level because in spite of some manufacturers "cheating" by floating totally unloaded vehicles they have to be able to float with a combat load and passengers to be of any practical use.

You also have to take into account the total volume and mass of the vehicles required to move a given size landing force because without ships to get them where you need them while useful for river crossings they're useless as an amphibious asset.

luigim

January 7th, 2017, 03:52 AM

Algeria in 2016 has fielded BMP2 Berezokh

http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/algeria_to_deploy_304_russian_bmp-2m_fitted_with_berezhok_combat_module_31404162.htm l

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2017, 05:14 PM

DRG

January 22nd, 2017, 05:26 PM

Don,
Don't have much time here's what I have on the Japanese Prototype 8x8 APC. Crew and carry same as the TYPE 96.
http://www.janes.com/article/66989/japan-unveils-8x8-apc-prototype
http://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_ind ustry/japanese_ministry_of_defense_unveils_new_8x8_apc_a rmoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_11601173.html
http://www.military-today.com/apc/new_japanese_8x8_apc.htm

I put it in simply because in this case, it was simple. The basic design for APC's these days follows a predictable pattern and I have three years to get the details right but for now, it's a Patria clone

And they just posted an update (Within the last 2hrs.) on the EITAN and yes we finally have the dimensions for it!!
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Still kinda general but I'll do the math and see how close I was

EDIT......one pixel in length and 2 in width ( now corrected )

the Eitan looks tiny compared to the Namer but the Namer is HUGE ( unless they put the smallest troopers they could find for that photo )
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14539&stc=1&d=1485121997

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2017, 07:16 PM

Japan: You're right it looks very similar to the PATRIA.

Israel: What I knew already - The NAMER is based on the MERKAVA IV chassis. What we didn't know is the difference between the two in dimensions, I'm using the NAMER as the reference point for the following...

1)It's 15 tons heavier than the maximum weight of the EITAN with the add on armor package (20 tons w/o it.).

2) L: ~.5m shorter, W: 1 - .8M wider and H: .5 - 1m shorter. The difference again is depending on the add on armor package being added or not for the EITAN.

And really it all makes sense for a tank hull versus an APC one. Following for progression and maintaining a "clean package" if you will.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/namera.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/namer.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

I'm done playing, time to enjoy my weekend a little bit.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

January 31st, 2017, 06:05 PM

If you want to save one OOB slot for Russia, I have a candidate for elimination: BRDM3 Scout Vehicle.

It is not in service in Russia ( in Kenya instead)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/brdm-3_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_s heet_specifications_pictures_video.html

"This vehicle is not in service with Russian army, but a contract was signed with Kenya for 88 vehicles. In the sale agreement, Kenya approved the delivery of these vehicles by the end of the year 2011"

http://www.deagel.com/Wheeled-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles/BRDM-3_a000348007.aspx

BRDM3 was a proposed BTR80 modification as a recon vehicle. But BRDM2 was to be replaced so...

Digging and digging I discovered that GAZ3937 Vodnik was cancelled (only limited service), replaced by GAZ Tigr that is in full production now from 2011 ( it's the jeep of the Crimean Little Green Men!)

It seems that the latest recon vehicle in the Russian real life OOB is the GAZ Tigr!!

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/gaz_tigr.htm

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/vodnik.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ_Vodnik#cite_note-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ_Tiger

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gaz-2330-tigr-light-armoured-vehicle/

"ther variants include GAZ-233014-0000186 and GAZ-233014-0000184 armoured personnel carriers, MK-BLA-01 UAV carrier, Kornet-EM multi-purpose missile system, TIGR SCOUT VEHICLE and Tigr-M mobile electronic warfare vehicle."
"Production of this military vehicle ceased in 2013 due to lack of orders. Russian Army preferred Tirg vehicles from the same automaker. The Tigr is broadly similar vehicle, however it is cheaper to produce and is more versatile."

So I propose to add in the Recon vehicle category GAZ Tigr (it's already in game with the kornet variant). In Russian OOB it's complementing BRDM2s as recon vehicle.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201606131041257462-russia-combat-vehicle-syria/

In the linked photos you can see the standard weapon of Gaz Tigr, PKP Pecheneg I think but I'm not sure.

Here is the most complete russian OOB Source.

http://www.russiadefence.net/t5271-russian-army-military-districts-land-units-locations-equipment-and-rearmaments

You can see GAZ Tigr as recoissennance vehicle.

IN SHORT I propose: DELETE BRDM3 ( not in service)

Recon Formations: ADD GAZ Tigr with PKP Pecheneg, Kord or AGS30 Grenade Launcher

Net slot result = ZERO, not saving one like i was saying at the start :angel

luigim

January 31st, 2017, 06:39 PM

Obviously GAZ Tigr is not only RECON vehicle but UTILITY vehicle too, it's the russian humvee from 2011 on, it will replace older UAZ variants.

DRG

January 31st, 2017, 06:42 PM

So I propose to add in the Recon vehicle category GAZ Tigr (it's already in game with the kornet variant).

???

luigim

January 31st, 2017, 06:44 PM

So I propose to add in the Recon vehicle category GAZ Tigr (it's already in game with the kornet variant).

???

In game there is only GAZ Tigr Kornet ATGM, not general purpose -Recon GAZ Tigr

Tigr in Sevastopol
https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-tigr-afvs-136th-brigade/

Some photos.. I recognize Pecheneg and AGS 30 Grenade Launcher

https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-tigr-afvs-136th-brigade/

https://img2.goodfon.ru/original/1680x1050/a/83/gaz-tigr-bronya-oruzhie.jpg

http://www3.do.ru/upload/of-paper/2011/webinfo_n@@pictures@do@2015@13@avto@tigr%5Ejpg.jpg

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/April-29th-rehearsal-of-2015/i-7qkLxhM/0/M/Rehearsal29april15Moscow-01-M.jpg

Sorry for my bad english

DRG

January 31st, 2017, 07:08 PM

Got it.....it was in with the wrong photo as Tiger Kvartet ------unit numbers are always helpful for clarity......

I have corrected the photo and am building Icons now

luigim

January 31st, 2017, 07:13 PM

Ok in the future if needed I will insert unit numbers in my posts. Seems that this Tigr vehicle fits in a lot of different formations

luigim

February 2nd, 2017, 07:06 PM

Like american Avenger Humvee..

http://armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_russian_gibka-s_air_defense_system_ready_for_preliminary_trials_ 12401175.html

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 8th, 2017, 05:06 AM

Don I know Andy and you are very busy smoothing out any lingering or last minute issues however, would you consider one for your country? One of my first go to sites just posted this today the LAV 6.0 and it looks impressive. This is a stand alone vehicle and not an LAV III model per say. I estimate it will enter service in Jan./Jun 2018 based on the issues raised in the below refs. and it looks like a LAV III on steriodes. Protection level to include calibers noted. I would put TI/GSR out to at least 45. As compared to the LAV III the LAV 6.0 is 9 tons heavier with the add on armor pkg. and w/o still 3.5 tons heavier.

As quoted from Ref. 1 "Currently the LAV 6.0 is one of the most protected armored personnel carrier in the world."

And if that's not incentive enough...Those "Hosers" Bob and Doug McKenzie might feature you on their show or better yet drink a case (or 2 or 3...) of their favorite Canadian brew in your honor!?!

Here's what I got...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/kodiak.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/lav_6_0.htm
http://www.gdlscanada.com/products/light-armoured-vehicles/lav-up.php
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/06/15/lav-6-0-power-storage-and-sensor-suite-selected/
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/07/21/lav-iiis-reappear-as-monuments/
http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=outgoing-coyote-lav-to-be-more-than-a-museum-piece/iietdrqv
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-executive-summary.page

Something else lurks up in Canada...an ALLIGATOR! :shock:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/alligator-6x6-tactical-armoured-vehicle/

If not I'll keep my eye on it! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 8th, 2017, 08:51 AM

Good catch.. Now in both as the "basic" LAVUP but also the LAVUP LRSS

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 8th, 2017, 12:30 PM

I knew the Bob and Doug McKenzie brothers would do the trick!?! :p

But THANKS and I'll consider the matter closed once we get a firmer idea of when they come into service as the Canadian Army website still doesn't list them yet. We'll be close though I believe.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

February 8th, 2017, 04:12 PM

They started being delivered in 2015 and I assume they are the beginnings of Coyote replacements

luigim

February 12th, 2017, 06:36 AM

https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/16700693_1876819779227436_2594437972849504244_o.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=de220dd0058af4253ce2d09f203c5c72&oe=5943ECB9

Are these smoke launchers for GAZ Tigr?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2017, 08:26 AM

Yes. 2x2 per vehicle. Not unusual for this class of vehicle anymore.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/shorland_s55.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/kamaz_43269_vystrel.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vn3.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 17th, 2017, 04:12 AM

When Post 338 was completed I felt a little unsettled about the LAV-UP/or 6.0 date that it was fielded. I came up with 1/2018 based on the fact that upgrades were still being continued and that the operational dates had a spread in them covering a couple of years.

I called upon an old friend of mine who has had successful results with the Australian, Austrian, German (Military Armor Museum MOD's dealing with the same general issues as we are now. The French MOD however wasn't so helpful.

Anyway, here's the email I sent with reply (On top.) that'll pretty much show nobodies possible date was correct...

"Greetings Pat Conklin.

Thank you for writing to us at Public Inquiries Desk at the Department of National Defence (DND) with your query.

For information on the LAV UP, please consult the following website (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/light-armoured-vehicle-III-upgrade.page) where you can find the released information on the LAV UP program.

There is generic information on (http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/vehicles/index.page).

I hope this proves useful.

Regards,
Mr. A. Tom

Public Inquiries Desk / Bureau des demandes de renseignements du public

ADM(PA) / SMA(AP) DND / MDN
Tel. / tél : 613-995-2534 Fax / télécopieur : 613-996-8330
E-mail / courriel : information@forces.gc.ca
Web / Toile : www.forces.gc.ca

From: patrick conklin [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: 9-Feb-17 02:33
To: +ADM(PA) Info@ADM(PA)@Ottawa-Hull
Subject: Service entry date of the LAV-UP/or 6.0

Sir or Ma'am,
Good Morning! I am curious as to whether or not the LAV-UP/or LAV 6.0 is currently in active service with your Army. What prompted this is that about this time yesterday I checked the military-today website and they were featuring the above mentioned APC. I dug a little deeper and came across information from VANGUARD, your site and some others and concluded that I believe the LAV-UP would enter operational service by Jan./or Jun. 2018. Military-Today has it having entered service in "2015 (?)". My date is based upon the fact it seems like the LAV-UP is still in development. Can you shed some light on this, and provide me with the actual month and year it entered service or is projected to enter service? My purpose is to maintain accuracy of the LAV-UP as I submitted it, and has been entered into the combined arms equipment data base for the PC war-game WinSPMBT. As a disclaimer I am in no way related to the game seller or developers of the game. I am simply a military equipment contributor to the Forum for the game. I can provide further information you may need concerning this request or about me as required.

Thank you for your valuable time in considering this matter.

Regards,
Pat Conklin USN/SS Ret."

Now here are those pages broken down...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/light-armoured-vehicle-III-upgrade.page
Note the following sections from the ref.
1) Under "Project phases" it shows...Currently in
Phase 4: Implementation" and

2) 4. Implementation

Project approval: October 2011
Contract award: October 2011
First delivery: December 2012
Initial operational capability: June 2014
Full operational capability: Spring 2020

Next under...

Additional information

August 2016
380 vehicles are delivered to Canada. The Canadian Army conducted operator and driver training across the various units located in Gagetown, Valcartier, Petawawa, Edmonton, and Shilo. The upgraded LAV is ready for operational deployments.

So now we're looking at something just after August 2016 as they're training with them at that point or you use Spring 2020 when again, Full Operational Capability (FOC) is achieved.

I really think you have to go with the latter here. This is no different than the F-35B issue is for the USMC. NAVAIR announced IOC last May, yet as we all know (Or should.) the F-35B still hasn't reached FOC with many issues to be rectified yet and the plane is still receiving many upgrades along with the fact it's not fully combat ready.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

whdonnelly

March 2nd, 2017, 08:23 AM

Panhard Crab.

Sounds great, except for the part about replacing heavy armor. Very enthusiastic review.
This:
"The US Army and even the USMC may also be wise to drop their heavy-weight armor obsession and take a good look at this low-slung armored chariot."

and this:

"Depending on the ammo used, the M242 can knock out main battle tanks at relevant ranges (Bradley Fighting Vehicles equipped with same cannon were known to knock out T-72s during operations in Iraq)."

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/panhards-crab-may-just-be-the-future-of-armored-scout-v-1581746120

DRG

March 2nd, 2017, 08:35 AM

Interesting.....

scorpio_rocks

March 2nd, 2017, 08:56 AM

My understanding was that the CRAB and its big brother the SPHINX (a much better vehicle with the 40mm CTWS) had been dismissed in favour of the Jaguar EBRC & Griffon as part of the French Scorpion EBMR program.

whdonnelly

March 2nd, 2017, 02:09 PM

I've seen reference to the Griffon reconnaissance vehicle but it appears to be larger than the CRAB. So far I'm unable too find much recent news Your guess is as good as mine.

Suhiir

March 2nd, 2017, 06:30 PM

Panhard Crab.
This:
"The US Army and even the USMC may also be wise to drop their heavy-weight armor obsession and take a good look at this low-slung armored chariot."

and this:
"Depending on the ammo used, the M242 can knock out main battle tanks..."
I can't speak for the US Army, but the USMC has little use for a non-amphibious scout vehicle that can't carry passengers. It's a matter of their intended use. The LAI (Light Armored Infantry) battalions in the USMC perform two roles, recon and mounted infantry. Given the cargo limitations of shipping they can't afford many specialized single-function vehicles. Why they don't use SP artillery etc.

They guys I spoke to that actually shot at a T62 (not 72) during Gulf I said that while they were certain they could have eventually chiseled thru with their 25mm it would have taken long enough they didn't want to hang around for it to fire back.

whdonnelly

March 3rd, 2017, 12:22 AM

Perhaps the author was a fan of "The Rat Patrol" television series from the late 60s and still wonders why we don't replace tanks with jeeps carrying machine guns.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 4th, 2017, 04:52 AM

To the French SCORPION PROJECT like any such program, there are winners and in this case a loser. Nexter/Renault/Thales were the winners with their JAGUAR (Recon) and GRIFFON (APC) vehicles respectively. The loser was Panhard marketing the SPHINX (Recon) and CRAB (Recon) vehicles. The bids I believe were announced in mid-2009. The contract was awarded to the winners in late 2014. I should point out this is a French land vehicle modernization program, so it's about more than these vehicles. Going to my APC Folder I still have the following going back to 2010 and more, hey it's that "T" word thing ...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/sphinx_panhard_ebrc_armoured_vehicle_reconnaissanc e_combat_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.ht ml
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/594/60594/Enter_the_Scorpion_French_Army_vehicle_fleet_moder nisation.pdf
http://www.armyrecognition.com/eurosatory_2016_official_news_online_web_tv_televi sion_defense_security_exhibition_paris_france/french_army_scorpion_programme_ready_to_deliver_fi rst_new_combat_armoured_vehicles_in_2018_11306166. html

The following for FYI...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_crab.htm

The winners...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/griffon_vbmr_6x6_multi-role_armoured_vehicle_ebmr_scorpion_technical_data _sheet_specifications.html
http://www.janes.com/article/61243/eurosatory-2016-french-army-s-griffon-6x6-makes-its-debut

Finally...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/jaguar_ebrc_6x6_reconnaissance_combat_armoured_veh icle_ebmr_scorpion_technical_data_sheet_pictures.h tml
http://www.janes.com/article/60172/france-partly-lifts-veil-on-jaguar-ebrc

Panhard is seeking export orders for their two vehicles.

I hope this clears up any confusion on the matter. And be careful I just might "T"ing" you and have a folder on you as well!?! :shock: & :cool: (Right spy's do wear "shades"?)

Suhiir's point is well taken, it's bad enough we have to carry them all over the world just so we can land them somewhere to play with their toys and take out their aggression on someone because we might've kept them cooped up onboard ship for a handful of months or longer. We're not the "White Star Line" so luggage is limited to what you carry and the
"bigger stuff" better be multi-functional, tasked, operational and any such other word associated with these that I can't think of at the moment!! :D Bottom-line those factors are important and space is really limited on the ships. By date available...
http://www.military-today.com/navy/tarawa_class.htm
(The above are all decommissioned, however they demonstrate the USMC landing capabilities from the mid 70's on.
http://www.military-today.com/navy/whidbey_island_class.htm
http://www.military-today.com/navy/wasp_class.htm
http://www.military-today.com/navy/san_antonio_class.htm

The AMERICA Class is excluded as it's only a helo assault vessel.

Someone has to go to work later this afternoon, so good night and have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 9th, 2017, 09:50 PM

And just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water Pat ... may I introduce the L-ATV.
https://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/l-atv/

Apparently the replacement for the armored HMMWV starting around 2019-2020.
Major features: HMMWV speed/mobility with MRAP protection.

sabresandy

March 9th, 2017, 11:48 PM

I have a question on the new Stryker Dragoon and the way it's implemented in v11.

Namely, why was it hived off into an entirely new formation? From what I've read, the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS). Logically they'd fit better into the one-per-platoon Light Support APC category, as an option in place of the grenade launcher Strykers, and the as-of-yet-nonexistent Javelin Strykers as a regular APC option.

We can probably phase out the "M113A4 IFV" for that role. They're not in service in the US, are they?

DRG

March 9th, 2017, 11:59 PM

It's in two formations and players can use them as they please. We still don't know for certain how they are to be integrated and when we do we will write a formation for them.

sabresandy

March 10th, 2017, 12:15 AM

Oh. I didn't see the "Stryker Platoon +" formation. That does help, although manually assembling mechanized squads isn't going to be fun.

Incidentally, I went and did a bit of Googling, and found:
* Starting around 2007, Strykers should gain laser rangefinding and at least some stabilization. That was when the M151E2 Protector was introduced.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/12057/new-remote-weapon-systems-stryker

* The M240 AAMG should be removed, unless it's meant to approximate a field mount or something similar?

DRG

March 10th, 2017, 06:14 AM

Oh. I didn't see the "Stryker Platoon +" formation. That does help, although manually assembling mechanized squads isn't going to be fun.

Well the problem is there is only sketchy info on how they are actually going to be used so I decided to get them in some kind of basic formation ( there are two ) and players can build how they like until better info is available as "the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" means there is an entirely new kind of Stryker I;m just learning about today

"intentions" isn't hard info....and as interesting as "Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" sounds it's totally new to me so maybe we need to give this a year to gather better info and in the meantime players can easily buy a basic Stryker coy and tack on a Dragoon Spt Sec

sabresandy

March 10th, 2017, 04:06 PM

Here's the best source I can find on it, from Breaking Defense:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/

"Upgunning the Europe-based Second Cavalry Regiment against the Russians is just the first of a “lethality upgrade” for the entire Stryker force. The 30mm quick-firing cannon for 2CR’s Strykers may ultimately go on half the Army’s fleet of the 8×8 armored vehicles (not counting specialist variants). The other half would get the a vehicular version of the Javelin, the military’s standard shoulder-fired anti-tank missile. Just as important, the Army wants to upgrade sights and sensors across the fleet — and it’s throwing the doors open to ideas from industry."

Any intent on adding Rangefinder 22/Stabilization, or removing the AAMG?
----

Other IFV news:

* Australia's LAND 400 program is proceeding apace, with the choices being a Boxer vehicle with the Puma's Lance turret (only with 35mm instead of 30mm), or a Patria AMV with 35mm.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/08/01/BAE-Rheinmetall-shortlisted-for-Australias-LAND-400-Phase-2-program/8951470062714/?spt=sec&or=bn

* Canada's LAV 6.0 upgrade seems all but confirmed; I saw chatter about it last year. How this will show up in-game, I'm not sure...

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/02/10/Canada-taps-General-Dynamics-for-armored-vehicle-upgrades/9121486760061/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=1

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 10th, 2017, 09:32 PM

You'll find the Posts concerning the LAV 6.0 on Pages 34 & 35 to include an email from the Canadian MOD to mine concerning it. Also posted on down select from Australia in here-that I've been tracking for years now as it kind've falls in line with the HAWKEI which I believe will finally be ready for the game next year. Ask Don or some of the "old hands" how many years I've been watching that one. THE MOST IMPORTANT issue beyond the pooling of information is the Patience to track this stuff for years at a time to monitor the evolution of a particular piece of equipment to the final choosen variant of it once accepted into service IF it makes it that far.

Back to vacation mode.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 14th, 2017, 10:11 PM

Looks like the ACV 1.1 is official (if not yet accepted/deployed) as is a probable 1.2 (larger more amphibious capable variant) that is intended to replace the LVT/AAV.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae-systems-delivers-first-amphibious-combat-vehicle-prototypes-to-marine-corps
https://www.defensetech.org/2016/12/13/bae-delivers-first-amphibious-combat-vehicles-marine-corps/
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/saic-singaporeans-challenge-bae-for-marine-corps-acv-contract-tests-to-begin/

DRG

March 14th, 2017, 11:30 PM

I guess we just have to wait and see how this develops

DRG

March 28th, 2017, 03:42 PM

Any intent on adding Rangefinder 22/Stabilization, or removing the AAMG?

I have added the rangefinder and Stabilization for next years OOB's but it had to be added from the start ( 2004 ) otherwise I have to add four additional units to an OOB with very few open slots left......so for 3 years they are slightly over capable. It's a fair compromise that I had to make

IDK where you see an AAMG....that's the second time you mentioned an AAMG..there are no AAMG's on any stryker...there is a "normal" MMG and I see no reason to remove it that doesn't create scenario issues for little benefit

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 29th, 2017, 02:30 AM

There is this "need" out here...forget it...This is what we really know...
1) All STRYKERS will get double "V" protected hulls which has been well underway for sometime now.

2) The USA will only currently upgrade 81 STRYKERS with the PROTECTOR MCT-30 turret.

3) From the USA and as it stands right now, well I'll just quote the ARMY here..."Fielding to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe will begin in May 2018, which represents "a near-record time from concept to delivery," according to Allyn." as taken from ref. 2. And yes ref. 1 covers the same as well.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army-receives-first-stryker-upgraded-with-30mm-cannon
https://www.army.mil/article/177472

About the PROTECTOR MCT-30 CLICK on the data sheet to the right for further details if you want...
https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/products/remoteweaponstation/protectormcrws/

There hasn't been any "real talk" about the JAVELIN version for about a year or so. However, this is what the USA plans are for that and more. Hopefully the "PROJECTED ACTIVITIES" section is still open as I copied over. If not click on it. Note the following...A) MCT-30 will mount a M240 coax. B) Turret picture as shown in articles above shows advanced optical systems TI/GSR 40. C) From FY 2020 (Oct 2019 for you non fiscal types.) on is when we can possibly think about the JAVELIN equipped STRYKER as part of the ECP-2/2a proposal. This will be the TI/GSR 50-60 version based on the data provided by the USA below concerning the use of TOW/ITAS targeting "structures" from those platforms.
http://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/gcs-stryker-family-of-vehicles/

I really like my sources, however, I have found many times over the years that the information provided goes directly back to whatever military direct source either MOD/DOD/Military Component. I can't say how many times I've posted those with my other references when submitting equipment out here. To put it "bluntly" and using a "modern metaphor" if it can be helped at all I refuse to be the one texting as I'm crossing the street and get hit by a car, fall in a man hole, trip into a fountain etc. etc. these things take time, they need to age like a good bottle of whiskey like my 12 year old Bushmills (You can only get it in Ireland.) that I don't plan to open until our 40th Anniversary in 9.5yrs.

Equipment is just like that. I've been guilty of over exuberance in the start of doing this work, the result, well that would be more work for Don and I. I'd rather at this point in the game see how much more Andy and Don can "squeeze" out of the software then have them fixing and deleting equipment the way we had to a few years back. That's no fun when you're trying to get new stuff in or modifying it which is easier then fixing it to draw the distinction between the two in this writing.

Sorry for venting and if I've offended anyone, my apologies. But sometimes "clarity of purpose" at least to my mind doesn't always come gift wrapped in the paper of your choosing.

Some pictures of something I've been following since 2012 late and to avoid confusion with the still in production earlier model, someone will figure it out and yes that's an armored cab...
14680 14681

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

March 29th, 2017, 10:02 AM

3) From the USA and as it stands right now, well I'll just quote the ARMY here..."Fielding to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe will begin in May 2018, which represents "a near-record time from concept to delivery," according to Allyn." as taken from ref. 2. And yes ref. 1 covers the same as well.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army-receives-first-stryker-upgraded-with-30mm-cannon
https://www.army.mil/article/177472

I added them for 9/117 as a compromise between the projected deployment date and the date the first test units were delivered. By next year that date will be firmed up and there will be formations pre-built using them but right now..they are have not been issued and any number of factors could change that but it does look like they will be deployed early next year

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 30th, 2017, 12:49 AM

You're right we should know something by time the next patch gets released in Mar/Apr of 2018. Your date works for me though the "swag" is a little more than what you and I normally use at max. 6 months. However as you pointed out there are those "factors" that always seem to come up and change things. All we can do is watch the "news" and of course the calendar. I ended up in the beginning of the thread and happened to look at Post #10 makes me wish things could be that easy again, all that did get in the game but, not long after things just seemed to get more "technical" I guess. Anyway I'll keep tracking this.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

March 30th, 2017, 09:07 AM

They also seem to be fast tracking these things and I suspect ( we will see.... ) that they are going to be deployed ahead of schedule. I now have a "Hvy Cavalry Trp" and "Hvy Cavalry Pl" in the OOB that integrates them with infantry that can be adjusted as new info is released

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 3rd, 2017, 08:15 PM

Don when we entered the much improved M2A3 BRADLEY BUSK/BUSK III (The major improvement was it gave them a true "hunter killer" FCS system amongst others to include defensive one's.) and I have to check it against my submission posts also, but if not mistaken I don't believe we gave it artillery observation powers. Well unless we missed it we should've especially after you read the following as I just did. Still I don't recall seeing it at the time.

Here's the quote...
The Army Acquisition Support Center website says the M2A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle features upgrades across much of the on-board systems that "provide 'hunter-killer target handoff' capability." The M2A3 IFVs and their crews are also the "Eyes of the Artillery," the ASC website said. The on-board technology the 2-137th will be using "can acquire, identify, track and designate targets while mounted and under armor, enhancing crew survivability."

Here's the ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/u.s._soldiers_from_kansas_national_guard_train_wit h_new_m2a3_bradley_ifv_infantry_fighting_vehicles_ 10104171.html

ASC as referred to is the following...
http://www.aschq.army.mil/home/AboutUs.aspx

Units effected are...
USA-889/898&899 A note about UNIT 889 the TI/GSR should be 50 vice 40. All "BUSK" units at the time received the same upgrades.

The "rub" here reading the article indicates that now all the M2A3 BRADLEY's (Article makes no mention of "BUSK" units.)have the new FCS and "Eyes of the Artillery (ETA)" equipment now. This is a "no brainier" only in that the regular ARMY will generally be fitted out before the National Guard starts getting the upgrades. In taking that logical step that means probably within the last couple of years (Or more.) the process of upgrading the M2A3 had started and is either completely finished or a "sneeze away" from being finished.
Those M2A3 UNITS would be...
USA-306/666&668. These should only be improved and limited to the FCS (to include TI/GSR) and again the "ETA".

No out of service UNITS by date would make the "cut" to be improved.

All this for reading my, well for today, evening papers. I guess, I should STOP reading my "papers"? :dk:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 3rd, 2017, 09:49 PM

This further supports my last Post on the M2A3, though good sources, these next two should cover the rest "of the bases" from second to home plate.
Ref. 1 very first para addresses this very simply and Ref. 2 is directly from the USA. Ref. 3 in particular the section below the M1200 picture would confirm we're right on our 2012 fielding date for our "BUSK" M2A3's and also when the artillery and target painting laser was also available.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/appi.htm
https://www.army.mil/article/185239/kansas_national_guard_soldiers_train_on_new_equipm ent_at_fort_riley
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/Weapons4_1012.pdf

I should think this should cover it, if not, you know where to find me. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 20th, 2017, 12:56 AM

Just got home from work around 11pm caught up on my news and a program than checked my in this case "paper" and found this, but, first I asked myself is this India? No it's the GAO the title actually says it all more then the sample article.
http://www.janes.com/article/69669/auditors-pleased-with-usmc-amphibious-vehicle-costs-but-recommend-delay

I don't have time now to dig further I need to get my "butt" to bed as I have my "fight course" in the morning. If no one else posts any further articles on the topic I'll see what I can come up with tomorrow late afternoon or evening.

Tonight I dream about the "Red Man"!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 20th, 2017, 04:12 PM

I always feel better after fighting the "Red Man" a couple of times in the heat of a SE Ga. day. Anyway I hit "pay-dirt" and if they abide by the delay the only USMC amphibious replacement program we're likely to see in the game will be the AVC 1.1 if you read the article it covers all the issues, if not, I'll be nice enough to tell just read the lower left section of this ref. and you'll see where I'm coming from.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684147.pdf

Note the GAO normally gets it's way where money is concerned.

For very recent background information, this is very good...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

Forgot to add...My MARINE friend out here was one of the very first to question the troop carrying capacity of these vehicles 10 vs standard 13 for a squad. I think she secretly works on the GAO Military Advisory Committee or MAC but not like "Hey Mac" - might get you a dirty look from her!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 20th, 2017, 04:48 PM

This is where it gets "game interesting"

to quote the GAO ( emphasis mine )

The ACV SAR provides comparison costs for 204 ACVs and 204
AAVs, implying a one-for-one replacement of AAVs by ACVs, when in fact
comparatively more ACVs may be required because they are expected to carry
fewer marines. Specifically, the AAV can transport 17 marines, while the ACV
1.1 will carry a minimum of 10 marines or up to 13.

so...... that throws the carry cap for that vehicle as it's set up in the game now right out the window.....currently, the Hvy Ampib versions of the AAV we have in the game now has a carry cap of 23....... I guess that needs some adjustment..... I will let the resident Marine check her OOB for knock-off effects of making those the correct carry cap....I cannot imagine the GAO was wrong about how many they carry :re:

but note the ACV CAN pack in 13 if necessary..just like the unit I set up in the game

Suhiir

April 20th, 2017, 07:14 PM

The new AAV SU (to be introduced in 2019) does in fact have a lower carry cap (due to the replacement of the wooden bench passenger seating by off-the-deck padded ones). But versions prior to that still use pretty much the same passenger seats as they've had since their introduction.

Current plans are to give the AAV SU a carry cap of 18 (17 would require the addition of a 4th vehicle per platoon or the creation of a new set of passenger units).

Part of what I'll be sending you next fall Don.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 20th, 2017, 08:48 PM

According to Headquarters Marine Corps - AAV 3 Crew + 21 Combat Marines. You'll find pages 10 - 11 very interesting in that it defines the current manning and equipment of the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of the USMC that comprises part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Pages 12 -13 Aviation Combat Element (ACE) manning and equipment with Pages 14 - 15 covering same for Logistics.
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/61/Docs/Amphibious_Capability.pdf

Further down you'll find data on ground fire support (Mortars etc.) same for air and ammo resources. Units as assigned to current Amphibian ship classes etc. etc. Should keep a couple of you busy for awhile if for nothing else then simple verification. Haven't quite seen anything out here yet to this detail and this current on the USMC in a long while. I just happened to stumble upon in my USMC data search on the AAV.

GAO are number cruncher's they ain't military.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 20th, 2017, 11:54 PM

There have been a number of equipment changes and upgrades (M1A1, MV-22, etc.) but the basic infantry battalion MEU really hasn't seen any significant changes since the mid 1980's (the addition of the LAI component).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 21st, 2017, 12:10 AM

I'm re-posting the video from an earlier post on the AAV-7SU in this thread. If you freeze the frame as the Major gives the tour you'll count 7 Port side & 8 Starboard side seats, leaving you with the following 3 Crew & 15 Combat Marines. Why the change? Allows for the additional protections and 675hp power-plant vice what I believe is currently a 525/or 550hp power-plant (This off the top of my head.)

Also the space allows the SU to carry 3 days worth of supplies vs. current 1 day. Suhiir would have a better handle on this but, it is my understanding all previous and current mods could be outfitted with a center bench to allow for carry of 25 troops. My USMC HQ post said 21 which with outboard benches is doable but, I would think very cramped.

Bottom line...
1) Much better protected.

2) Armament upgrade still being looked at (Primarily some type of ATGW System.).

3) Faster at Sea and on Land it'll be much better at keeping up with armored units. However this is still being evaluated currently.

4) Increased terrain operability (SU is benefiting from the use of modified BRADLEY suspension components and combat endurance as noted above.)

5) Assuming no issues during 10 unit operational evaluation currently ongoing, Low rate production by 2019, fielded by 2023 in service until current estimates run from 2033-2035.

Video again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKlgq3RDu74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAInmP4KMw

Second video (New.) about 22 seconds in, freeze it, verifies my seat count. Note the Hi/Lo seat configuration this allows for the human bodies/seat configurations thus, increasing carry capability.

Been on this for a year now or so.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 21st, 2017, 05:55 AM

I can't speak for the newer versions ... but in the 70's they were VERY cramped (in fact the center bench seat was rarely used) and the exhaust fumes inside the crew compartment were nearly unbearable. In reality they rarely carried more then about 15-17 passengers ... and one of those is in the vehicle commanders position, which is that hatch opposite the weapons station. The 3rd crewmember was in back with the passengers when there were passengers aboard, otherwise he was in that commanders position getting fresh air!

The main reason for the passenger capability change is the elimination of that center bench (which as I said was rarely used) and those new individual seats vice the bench for passengers.

As to supplies ... really depends how much you want to hang on the outside of the hull (assuming you're not doing a beach landing when anything outside would be waterlogged AND create drag, thus nothing was outside).

But, for game purposes we use the published data because otherwise you'd never get at consensus on anything (speed, armor, range, penetration, ...).

DRG

April 21st, 2017, 08:11 AM

True and it may be possible to lower the SU's CC to closer to spec values and still maintain the existing formation structure and 18 may do the trick without bending the rules very much....BUT.... the current Rifle Plt(Mec) have 60 men using an AAVP7A1/RAM....6 of that is crew for the AAVP7A1/RAM leaving 54 / 3 = 18...the problem is 3 passengers are 13 and that's the main squads... that leaves 5 open seats per vehicle but the mix of added units that have to go in are 2 for the Hvy snipers and the two AT teams....the problem is the M240 MMG Sec is 6 men and 13+6 = 19 .......and that's what makes OOB work "interesting" at times..... trying to fit reality into game reality. If the M240 MMG Sec was broken down to two 3 man teams instead of the single unit it is now things would fit...but we only have 10 slots and they are full..... if this was a company formation we could build a "platoon" with two 3 man teams..but this is a platoon and you cannot put a platoon into a platoon

Fun

.......and if the SU really does only carry 15 then the max number of troops that should be in the platoon is 45 with three vehicles...60 with 4

Don

Suhiir

April 21st, 2017, 08:57 AM

One reason I'd like to keep the carry cap at 19

13-man Rifle Squad + 6-man MMG Section
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-Javelin Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(8 units)

But 18 can work
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man Javelin Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(9 units)

17 or less would require a 4 vehicle AAV platoon and they are only 3 typically. But they may need to go to 4 with the reduced carry capacity of the AAV SU.

AND

There's the problem of mechanized/motorized formations ... still limited to 10 slots as well. So 1 for the company command unit, 1 for the company command transport, 3 are the infantry platoons, another 3 their vehicles, 1 for the company mortars, 1 for the mortar transport ... this leaves 0 slots left ... for the FO, TOWs, MPAD ... "bit" of a problem.

DRG

April 21st, 2017, 09:38 AM

10 slots it is and 10 it shall remain forever unless Andy finds a way to re-write the laws of computer science

also, the SU is still in testing phase and in the end they may decide to for with 4 per plt. We can only guess as we are not the ones making those decisions.....but.....if you can only put 15 troops per vehicle and you only have 3 vehicles then you can only have 45 men per platoon....basic arithmetic. The ONLY way to put more in is to increase the vehicle count by one and that's not game reality......that RL reality and game fudging that to allow them to carry more won't fly very far. If there are more troops than capacity then theres a problem with capacity....if we allow an extra 1 or maybe 2 capacity because unit size requires that fudge but the overall troop count is correct but we cannot break down units like RL and put 3 men in one vehicle and 3 in another so we bump up the capacity by 1 or 2....that I can live with but to bump up capacity to carry more troops than reality... not so much............... so artificially increasing CC to 18 or 19 to make platoons bigger than they are in RL is not an option

Suhiir

April 21st, 2017, 02:54 PM

Yep, and this isn't even taking into account the reality that there's only so much volume aboard amphibious landing ships. You can't just add all that many extra vehicles to accommodate a reduced passenger capacity. So either you reduce the size of the units or you reduce the size of the formation (instead of 3x Rifle Companies you make an MEU 2).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 22nd, 2017, 03:16 AM

My job as I see it is to read my "newspapers" and and see what's coming down the pike, or is getting changed, going away and then trying to tie all these up in a way that makes sense and present it with all it's welcome or unwelcome reality. Where we can do it without software limitations constraining us, we should even when it's an inconvenience stay as close to the real world (RW) as possible with the equipment within the game. We owe it to ourselves and the thousands of players who've constantly (And reviewers of.) over the years have commentated on the realism of this wonderful game. Quite frankly, I'd never have bothered if this wasn't the case here as Don found out early when I submitted the "RISE Passive" MBT. The issue would simply boil down to an ammo one in which the tank would only be sandwiched by date between two others for a six month period of time-this was no hard compromise and it saved a slot in a very tight USA OOB.

So now we might have issues with manning on the AAV's I'll just simply say we've had it pretty good for quite awhile because we've had at least on extra rifleman who would've not necessarily in the RW been there because that slot would've been filled by a USN Field Corpsman (Medic) but like the MP's we used to have in the USA OOB they're not relevant to the game (However like the USMC we felt very very lucky to have them on the boats as Independent Corpsman with added RADCON training.) and we move on.

The AAV SU as has been pointed out will probably cause the CORPS to make some kind of adjustment and trust me when I say they will if it's warranted. Of that there's no doubt like any professional military organization would. And as my almost last boat CO always reminded us on SSBN-739G, "Change is a constant." and isn't that what we do out here!?! And besides until we've got until late 2018/2019 if the seating or anything else changes with it.

Maybe we need to remind ourselves of that at times or else why bother. Too much is coming between now and 2026 and the above will never have "rung so true". I thank God this isn't an RPG or Fantasy/Sci Fi game nothing wrong with it mind you but, let's face it those games are a dime a dozen.

I hope especially the younger players out here can appreciate the uniqueness of this game, the work that goes into keeping it relative and realistic as noted above as possible. These are the key factors in making both these games challenging and fun for us.

I would like to walk away from this game in 2026 knowing I did the best I could for it in my own small way and that we were not ever afraid to do the right thing out here for the players.

So let's start with a definition of a word from Merriam-Webster (This is the USA after-all.), then I have found the current guidance from the USMC on all things AAV etc. Did you expect something less here!?!

1) Notional is the word, in this case the first definition below applies though, the Oxford one is somewhat
better.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notional

2) Organization of the United States Marine Corps MCRP 5-12D Updated on Feb. 2016.
The following document pages might be of some use... 5-5/5-14/5-17/5-27 and 8-2//.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCRP%205-12D.pdf

3) Everything you wanted to about the AAV-7, how to disembark, setup for beach assault, formation assignment per mission, landing, assaulting, there's just too much fun in this document that I just didn't know what to do with myself!?!
The following document pages might be of some use... Fundamental Section 1/Section 2: 2-6/2-7/Table 3-3 on 3-9/Figure 3-2 on 3-14/Figure 3-5 on 3-24/Combat Load on 6-9/These last reflect PDF page numbers/A-2 PG. 160/F-3 PG. 195/F-4 PG.196/F-5 PG.197/F-6 PG.198/PG.205//
http://www.marines.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iu4MASZ7pGA%3d&portalid=59

Now I really hope no one asks "But what about the AAV-SU?"
well I'm not going there. :p

Gotta work later today the "Red Man" always keeps me fired up for a couple of days after.

With anything in life "You ain't tryin, if you ain't tryin." and I've obliviously lived in the South too long now!?! ;)

Have a good weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 22nd, 2017, 04:34 AM

I get a cover and lots of blank pages.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...RP%205-12D.pdf

Yeah, the ultimate reorganization that will result from the SU will be interesting to see. But right now all we have is speculation and (semi) educated guesses.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 22nd, 2017, 06:17 AM

Made a "HC" to take an allergy med, saw your post. Went to my last and checked both seemed to work fine pages came up fine after I let them download. But using your link I get the 404 error from a different USMC site. Very strange. Trying something here...
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCRP%205-12D.pdf

I'm back and the above opened properly, should see a red page open up first with...

"MCRP 5-12D
Organization of the United States Marine Corps
US Marine Corps
(As Amended Through 15 February 2016)
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
PCN 144 000055 00"

Also went back to previous page w/Post 380 and they're both still coming up fine. I gotta get back to sleep. Don't know?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 22nd, 2017, 07:08 AM

The link Pat provided in both post 380 and 382 work for me....the one Suhiir provided produces a 404

and since I get constantly nitpicked about things like this the actual manual states

Load capacity 21 combat-equipped troops

......and the USMC OOB has it set up for 23 but in THIS CASE it is justified as two of the three AAVP7A1 are under capacity but the third is at max because the game does not allow enough unit slots to break down the MMG teams

Just saying......sometimes we have to adjust RL to fit the game but in this case, the overall platoon has the correct number of vehicles and the correct number of troops when I check it deployed in the game in April 2017 the Rifle Plt(Mec) loads 17+13+23 = 53 and Rifle Plt*(Mec) loads 13+13+23 = 49

53 / 3 = 17.6
49 / 3 = 16.3

so *technically* the Rifle Plt*(Mec) will load all available troops into a SU but the Rifle Plt(Mec) will not by half a man per vehicle

In the big scheme of things it's a minor issue but allowing a one or two added capacity to make it work in the game is one thing...6 over capacity is stretching things a bit too far and I would LOVE to have 12 slots instead of 10 but 10 is what we have

Bottom line.....we will do what we can do within the limitations of the game structure and the information we have available

Don

Suhiir

April 22nd, 2017, 09:05 AM

Made a "HC" to take an allergy med, saw your post. Went to my last and checked both seemed to work fine pages came up fine after I let them download. But using your link I get the 404 error from a different USMC site. Very strange. Trying something here...
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCRP%205-12D.pdf
Must be an Microsoft Edge thing ...
Getting the red cover page but every other page in the PDF is blank.
Odd.

......and the USMC OOB has it set up for 23 but in THIS CASE it is justified as two of the three AAVP7A1 are under capacity but the third is at max because the game does not allow enough unit slots to break down the MMG teams

53 / 3 = 17.6
49 / 3 = 16.3

so *technically* the Rifle Plt*(Mec) will load all available troops into a SU but the Rifle Plt(Mec) will not by half a man per vehicle
This is why I said 18 was the minimum passenger capacity I could work with ... and even then I'm not sure I can manage it with 10 unit slots.

DRG

April 22nd, 2017, 01:55 PM

This is why I said 18 was the minimum passenger capacity I could work with ... and even then I'm not sure I can manage it with 10 unit slots.

there is still the issue of 13 man squad +6 man MMG team = 19 so 19 may have to be the fudge required.....there are also issues with the way formation 489 is set up ( and others ).....those snipers should be units and they should be in front of the first carrier not behind is otherwise an autodeploy leaves them on foot with a 2 formation gap between the lead carrier and the platoons and that is NOT desirable

You can PM me if you like but I see absolutely no reason for using a single sniper "formation" there it just messes up loading.

Don

Suhiir

April 22nd, 2017, 04:24 PM

The other possibility is removing the sniper and ATGM Teams from the platoon formations (neither is actually part of the platoon TO&E anyway, they were just put there because there was room) to make room for the AAVs and putting them in the company level formations ... I'm playing with different possibilities.

Suhiir

April 22nd, 2017, 10:00 PM

To whom it may concern:
####################

Unit# 187 AAVP7A1 - Carry 121
Unit# 690 AAVP7A1+ - Carry 121
Unit# 691 AAVP7A1/RAM - Carry 121
Unit# 844 AAVP SU - Carry 118

Formation# 480 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1080, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1495, Unit#10 None

Formation# 481 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1080, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1494, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 482 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1494, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 483 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1495, Unit#10 None

Formation# 484 Rifle Plt (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICKLISTS)

Formation# 485 Rifle Co (Mec) - Dates 1/75-12/92 - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1137, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 486 Rifle Plt* (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISTS)

Formation# 487 Rifle Co (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISIS)

Formation# 488 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1137, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 489 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 490 Rifle Plt (Mec) - Dates 1/46-12/125 - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 360, Unit#3 360, Unit#4 430, Unit#5 430, Unit#6 411, Unit#7 411, Unit#8 180, Unit#9 180, Unit#10 180

DRG

April 22nd, 2017, 11:12 PM

Suhiir

April 23rd, 2017, 08:02 AM

I ran a quick check with the current date and the coys work well for both types of AAV and the load combination I got with the SU's put everyone inside with a max per vehicle of 16. I will check other decades tomorrow but it's looking very good. When I'm more awake than I am now I will recheck this......as it looks like the SU's can be made their RL 17 CC

Don

Nope, they'll need 18 ... you have to fit the sniper teams and javelin teams into them too. With the limit of 10 units per formation and having to split the MMG section into teams the snipers and ATGMs are no longer in the platoon formations.

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 09:09 AM

Nope, they'll need 18 ... you have to fit the sniper teams and javelin teams into them too. With the limit of 10 units per formation and having to split the MMG section into teams the snipers and ATGMs are no longer in the platoon formations.

Well these are loaded......
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14703&stc=1&d=1492951840

like so.....and nobody's on foot
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14704&stc=1&d=1492951924

and formation 489 is set up as you specified
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14705&stc=1&d=1492952139

489 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

ATTACHED IS A SECOND TEST I JUST RAN..... ALL TROOPS ARE LOADED AND THE HIGHEST COUNT IS 17

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 09:31 AM

Formation# 484 Rifle Plt (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICKLISTS)

Formation# 486 Rifle Plt* (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISTS)

HeHeHe..... EVERY picklist in the USMC uses those formations...all 100 of them and I have little enthusiasm for that but we can accomplish this change a slightly different way that won't involved changing 100 picklists

>
>
>

EDIT

490 is copied to 484 and 486 which are the primary mec platoons used by the picklist...then 490 is deleted

484 runs 1/46-12/74
486 runs 1/75-12/125

the remaining coys are set up with the appropriate platoons and all is right with the universe again and no picklists were harmed........484 and 486 are duplicates but so what ? It's not like we are going to run out of formation slots in that OOB....and it's NOT how the OOB is structured in MOBHack that is important....it's what's displayed in the game for players to use and from that POV it does not matter at all that 484 and 486 are the same

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14707&stc=1&d=1492955296

There are 10 picklist issues remaining that involved Form 487 ....I will deal with those later..

FURTER EDIT

I dealt with is now while it's fresh.

Form 487 is now a duplicate of 485 with different dates

485 runs 1/75 - 12/85
487 runs 1/86 - 12/92

picklist remain untouched and the change to the game is seamless

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14708&stc=1&d=1492957110

Everything fits, nobody is on foot, the picklists remain as they are and the CC for the vehicles is closer to spec than they have ever been and all that is "a good thing" getting the formations to work with the AAV7 and the SU is " a very good thing" :up::up:

AND..... you CAN fit everyone into a SU coy @ 17 per vehicle

Suhiir

April 23rd, 2017, 04:10 PM

Well these are loaded......

489 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

ATTACHED IS A SECOND TEST I JUST RAN..... ALL TROOPS ARE LOADED AND THE HIGHEST COUNT IS 17

*blinks*
You managed to fit the 3 x sniper teams and 2 x javelin teams on the AAVs at 17 carry?
How?
Where?

I was trying to avoid duplicates in the formations/picklists but yeah ... that'd work just fine.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 23rd, 2017, 04:44 PM

The USMC would be proud you've managed to get one below their "notional" goal of 18 in an AAV. I know I left the definition of the above word but, in this case it was the desired goal of the CORPS if you took the time to read from that ref. A job well done!! Even I can live with it, not that I'd have much choice in the matter, however, it's still worth mentioning for the effort alone to get there.

I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!! Now I've always been held to the six month standard (Our agreement for SWAG.) of a projected fielding date with Don, maybe I misunderstood the agreement all these years and it really was six years all this time!?! Oh Happy Day!!!! Stand by to receive incoming traffic!!!! First a little Icon party: :rolleyes:, :cool:, :shock:, ;), :p and :D !!

As a note, I have found other USMC data that's holding to late 2022/or 2023 for fielding the AAV-SU. Can post if desired.

Seriously to you both, well executed and a good job!!!! :clap:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 23rd, 2017, 06:11 PM

Academic exercise ... Can you fit 10# of stuff in a 5# sack within the limits imposed by the game mechanics (10 slots).

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 06:37 PM

I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

It's in operational testing AFAIK so I put it in the OOB

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 06:43 PM

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 07:20 PM

*blinks*
You managed to fit the 3 x sniper teams and 2 x javelin teams on the AAVs at 17 carry?
How?
Where?

With SU load limit set to 17
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14712&stc=1&d=1492989477

everything fits and you end up with about half the carriers at 17 capacity and the other half 16

Suhiir

April 23rd, 2017, 10:39 PM

I have a couple other ideas in mind for those formations..the re-nationalized Co Supt (Mec) has loads of room left for some of those formation/units that screw up auto deploy. It just requires a bit of "creativity"

I was keeping that to stuff that usually deploys behind the front lines (mortars, MPADS) and hadn't considered it's excess carry capacity ... duh.

DRG

April 23rd, 2017, 10:51 PM

some of those added coy extra units could be used as "security" for the mortars and manpads..... but in an advance, some could be dropped off and the remainder continue forward so it's a legitimate use of that formation

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 5th, 2017, 09:19 PM

With IDEX 2017 going on I just happened to catch this on the show/exhibition news area. Looks like the Czech Army is seriously looking at the German PUMA IFV C3/P6. Understand I've got a couple of issues going right now, nothing bad, however I don't have the time to back check the German PUMA IFV. That being said three issues or non starters don't know...
1) Fielded btwn Jan.-Apr. 2016.

2) Indicates all using SPIKE I believe it to be the LR version as I think the IDF is still testing the latest version due this year to go into service with the IDF.

3) Is the German PUMA IFV configured with the "soft kill" MUSS system as indicated in this article?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/idet_2017_news_official_online_show_daily_report_c overage/psm_puma_aifv_candidate_to_replace_czech_army_bmp-2_idet_10506173.html

As a testing update for EITAN which will be equipped with the new SPIKE when fielded...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/israeli_eitan_8x8_armored_personnel_carrier_is_bei ng_tested_by_the_israeli_defense_ministry_and_idf_ 81004174.html

Probably will be ready for fielding by years end or very early next year by the pace of development. Nice to see someone run a defense industry with "Their Sxxx one sock" for a change.

Gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 8th, 2017, 09:11 PM

Australia's LAND 400 Phase II Program has passed another milestone with the completion of the weapons trials for the BOXER and AMV as the competition is still ongoing.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/boxer_crv_and_patria_amv35_test_australia_land_400 _80806173.html

Personal opinion is I still "feel" at this time the BOXER will come out ahead on this. We'll see with time.

Czechoslovakia... Everyone wants their EUROS.
http://www.janes.com/article/67740/czech-republic-seeks-new-tracked-ifvs
http://www.defence24.com/367643,cv-90-ifv-to-replace-the-czech-bmp-2-platform
http://www.janes.com/article/71211/bae-systems-takes-aim-at-czech-army-requirement-with-cv90
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/gdels_czechoslovak_group_ascod_to_replace_czech_ar my_bmp-2_10606171.html

2 HOUR EDIT TIME I'M IN HEAVEN, HEAVEN (Your supposed to sing along here you know!!) I'M SO HAPPY, HAPPY I THINK I'LL JUST END THIS HERE!! :p

Thank You Shrapnel Games and of course Don!! I feel another song coming on...NEVER MIND. :cool:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

August 16th, 2017, 03:05 AM

New info/vid on the JLTV/L-ATV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LusDBNxZhqk

MarkSheppard

August 16th, 2017, 08:31 PM

Chinese are working on a modular HIFV which is at least at the prototype stage.

Probably a tech demo jointly funded by NORINCO and the PLA(N) to try out the HIFV concept to see if it can be made to work with PLA(N) doctrine.

http://defence-blog.com/army/norinco-develops-new-heavy-infantry-fighting-vehicle.html

The China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO Group) is developing a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on tank chassis.

The new Chinese heavy infantry fighting vehicle has modular armor with add-on armor modules. So protection level can be tailored to counter specific threats or to suit mission requirements. The mobility and protection of the vehicle is comparable to the latest VT-5 tanks.

The new fighting vehicle also fitted with a turret that is armed with a 30 mm gun. The new IFV is fitted with an unmanned turret armed with one 30mm automatic cannon. The turret has panoramic sighting system and integrated gun-and-fire control system.

redcoat2

August 18th, 2017, 04:41 PM

The latest news about Stryker Dragoons

https://www.army.mil/article/192479/to_boost_firepower_in_europe_soldiers_test_stryker _cannon_javelin_system

DRG

August 18th, 2017, 07:04 PM

If I missed it I apologize but how many Javalins reloads are carried?

Suhiir

August 18th, 2017, 10:04 PM

If nothing else the 1st photo in this certainly settles any unit size issues for WinSPMBT.
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/22/marines-operate-amphibious-combat-vehicles-from-ship-in-first-ever-launch-and-recovery-testing

The article also discusses the upcoming ACV-1.2 (a more amphibious capable variant intended to replace the AAV).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 22nd, 2017, 12:27 AM

FYI: Looks like China wants to broaden it's influence in the weapons export market further with the VN-17 HAPC. From the angle of the picture accompany ref. 1, looks like a 20mm and note the ATGW launcher one to each side. And at 30 tons, it should be well protected. A comparison is being made to the VT-5 LMBT. More on the new APS in ref. 2.
http://www.janes.com/article/73248/china-s-norinco-reveals-new-armoured-vehicles-active-protection-system

GL5 APS: 360 degree protection with sensor (4) covering a 90 degree arc.
http://www.janes.com/article/73227/norinco-demonstrates-gl5-aps

As a note about my post (About 2/3 weeks back in the MBT Thread.) on Ukraine's ZASLON APS, JANE's has cleared this up in my mind now. Based on what was posted, ZASLON technically speaking, should be a better system regarding detection as if you might remember each sensor covered a min. arc of +155 degrees of arc thus providing overlapping detection. The plus here should be obvious in that a MBT/APC could lose two sensors and still be well protected.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 24th, 2017, 12:25 AM

Well not that long ago I had a discussion in the MBT Thread I believe it was concerning the state of the Russian OOB and what I had on file just myself in dealing with soon to be and projected Russian equipment. Besides all the fairly new stuff like the T-14, T-15, BUMERANG etc. etc. now we can add the following below equipment to the ever increasing Russian OOB.

But before I do it is important to remember that the "newer" toys of the Russian Army will represent a much smaller part of the Army versus recapitalization of existing or if you resetting platforms much like the ABRAMS with the SEP modernization programs. Plain and simply it's a more cost effective solution especially when modernizing a large military force.

BTR-87:
http://www.janes.com/article/73305/army-2017-vpk-showcases-btr-87-apc

BMD-4M Airborne:
http://www.janes.com/article/73314/army-2017-tractor-plants-modernises-bmd-4m

China is in the act of doing the same (So are most major militaries.) this time a new variant of the VP-10 APC mounting a 105mm MG.
http://www.janes.com/article/73292/norinco-rolls-out-vp10-8x8-vehicle-variants

The theme continues with the USA and consider this as an ongoing update. They hope to reach FOC by the Summer of 2018.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_soldiers_to_train_with_stryker_dragoon_ifv_armo red_1180817.html

Some stuff from the ARMY-2017 Exhibition just outside of Moscow. The photos might be of useful for our purposes in many ways.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2017_show_daily_news_coverage_report/bumerang_k-17_new_russian_8x8_ifv_live_firing_demonstration_1 2308171.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2017_show_daily_news_coverage_report/kurganets-25_bmp_ifv_infantry_fighting_vehicle_at_army-2017_12208172.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 24th, 2017, 08:50 AM

Well not that long ago I had a discussion in the MBT Thread I believe it was concerning the state of the Russian OOB and what I had on file just myself in dealing with soon to be and projected Russian equipment. Besides all the fairly new stuff like the T-14, T-15, BUMERANG etc. etc. now we can add the following below equipment to the ever increasing Russian OOB.

But before I do it is important to remember that the "newer" toys of the Russian Army will represent a much smaller part of the Army versus recapitalization of existing or if you resetting platforms much like the ABRAMS with the SEP modernization programs. Plain and simply it's a more cost effective solution especially when modernizing a large military force.

BTR-87:
http://www.janes.com/article/73305/army-2017-vpk-showcases-btr-87-apc

From the perspective of the game there is little difference between the BTR-82 and the BTR-87. Based on the specs from

http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_82.htm

It has a marginally more powerful engine..12HP.... and a slight reduction in top speed.....90 kph vs 100 for the 82 ( but that's just one source......) it might have a bit more armour but that difference in power-speed might be " source distortion"......until there is further info I would be inclined to rename the 82 as BTR-82/87 but the 87 does show ATGM capability but that is not stated in the article

BMD-4M Airborne:
http://www.janes.com/article/73314/army-2017-tractor-plants-modernises-bmd-4m

already in the game

knowing what is up and coming is great but I am more interested in what was just delivered to the troops

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 5th, 2017, 11:35 AM

A couple of program updates...

Australia: After over a year now the ADF has declared that Phase 1 Testing in the LAND 400 program has been completed on time. This is where the ADF is evaluating the AMV 35 against the BOXER. I still feel "my gut" instinct has me thinking the BOXER will win this competition. Phase 2 decision will be made during the 1st half of 2018 when evaluation of the Phase 1 results should be completed.

You'll notice I'm using a new ref. for this story. I've been mirroring this site against my normal ones for several months now and am confident enough to start using it out here. I hope some of you might find it useful as well.
http://www.asdnews.com/news-71565/Testing_Completed_For_New_Army_Combat_Vehicles_(LA ND_400).htm

USMC: The CORPS has ordered a low rate production of 21 AAV-SU tracks. They should be delivered sometime between JAN - APR 2018 for what amounts to them being put into a "reliability growth testing program" for as of yet an unspecified period of time. The CORPS up to this point, took it through an initial 1.5yr. testing program.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_marines_low-rate_production_aav-su_upgrade_program_83108172.html

Just a couple of quick ones, have a good day. Hoping IRMA doesn't ruin my mini vacation! :eek:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

September 5th, 2017, 08:13 PM

Looks like I need to change the introduction date for the AAV/SU to 1/118 vice 1/117.

Thanks sailor!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 6th, 2017, 06:02 AM

You might want to move that to the right about another year or so. The AAV-SU is just going into the next phase of the op eval is all. There are still concerns with the new systems added to an "old" hull design, in particular it seems there are concerns with the engines and drive trains on the hull. Also the unit assigned with these 21 units will be assigned the task of putting them through "real world" op eval and testing to identify any issues as noted etc. and offer recommendations for further improvements. This realistically will take another 9 - 18 months pushing possible FOC back to maybe JAN 2019 depending on what issues come up. Full rate production, I believe isn't scheduled to begin until 2023.

From ref. 1...
"A key area for the Marines to continue studying is the effect of the new systems, such as the engine and drive train, on the old hull. Leimbach said that, while everything fit into the vehicle, the new engine and other components may vibrate differently than the old one, for example; the AAVs were built to be reliable based on the legacy components, so the Marines will have to continue studying the effects of the new equipment to see what that means for reliability rates and maintenance procedures."
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/23/27689

From ref. 2 starting on Pg. 17, quote taken from Pg. 18...
"Milestone B in the spring of 2014 , and ten prototypes are currently undergoing developmental test and operational assessment. Milestone C is planned for the fourth quarter
of FY 2017 and IOC is planned for FY 2019. FOC is planned for FY 2023."
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20170524/105982/HHRG-115-AS28-Wstate-StillerA-20170524.pdf

From ref. 3 a well respected think tank...
The news here is as follows A) Addresses the issues from the above but, B) though off topic somewhat this caught my eye quote,
"The AV-8B Harrier, designed to take off from the LHA and LHD amphibious assault ships, will be retired from Marine Corps service in 2026. The AV-8B received near-term capability upgrades in 2015 that will continue in 2017 (Mine-This will need to be looked it.) in order to maintain its lethality and interoperability until the F-35 transition is complete."
http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/us-military-power/u-s-marine-corps/

Finally and this should "cap it off" from ref. 4...
A very good read on both the AAV-SU and ACV 1.1 current program status. On the AAV-SU in particular, it deals more deeply with some of the legacy issues the CORPS is concerned with in this next phase of the op eval. For instance the original pump for the water jets was one designed to handle sewage waste versus the new one that's purpose built for the job.

You (I) can see the potential issues that can arise from this against the hull from the equipment mounts, sound mounts will play a key role here in significantly reducing noise and vibration through the hull. For failed sound mounts can lead to failed and or degraded system operations and ultimately get you killed in the submarine world if someone is hunting you. They'll have to potentially access their sound mounts as well with the new equipment installed over the long term to determine from a mechanical point of view they can handle the new systems.

I can offer my expertise in this area as I was one of a handful onboard assigned as a "Sound Silencing Petty Officer" and let me tell you we have a bunch onboard!! Each one having to be inspected.
http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-corps-receives-amphibious-combat-vehicles-2017-1?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=referral&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+(Business+Ins ider)

From the surface NAVY side (The mission outcome is the same.) and for further reading if desired an over view of the "Sound Silencing" Program.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/stu2/NEWIS9_7.html

Not what my MARINE friend I think wants to hear.

As much as I like new equipment sometimes you have to be patient as a general rule.

Heading back to bed!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

September 6th, 2017, 01:37 PM

We'll shoot for Jan 2019 on the AAV/SU for now, we can adjust the dates later.

We also have the ACV 1.1 scheduled for Jul 2020 since it's suppose to replace the rest of the AAV7 fleet (presumedly the 1.2 version).

Lastly, the Harrier is currently scheduled to be around till 2025.

DRG

September 9th, 2017, 07:43 PM

Looks like I need to change the introduction date for the AAV/SU to 1/118 vice 1/117.

Thanks sailor!

Done

redcoat2

October 3rd, 2017, 08:05 PM

Taiwan is going to produce a IFV variant of the CM32 'Yunpao' armed with a 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II cannon:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/2017/10/02/taiwan-acquires-orbital-atk-cannons-for-local-vehicle-program/

redcoat2

November 14th, 2017, 08:12 PM

It seems that the Indonesian Marine Corps (obat79) has five BTR-4M APCs:

http://defence-blog.com/army/video-indonesian-marine-corps-staged-military-training-exercises-with-btr-4m.html

http://spetstechnoexport.com/en/news/76

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 13th, 2017, 04:20 AM

Well they're here! Well really not so much here as much as over there-Germany to be more precise. The 2nd Cav. just received it's first new "DRAGOON" STRYKER w? 30mm. End user field tests are to start in Apr. 2018. If all goes well, the rest will arrive somewhere between ~Jul. 2018 into early 2019. Still can't confirm ATGW system as of now and of course the picture has the turret covered :rolleyes:.

Anyway...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2017_global_defense_security_news_industr y/first_dragoon_stryker_30mm_delivered_to_us_army_2d _cavalry_regiment.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

dmnt

December 14th, 2017, 04:30 AM

Finland to order a test batch of MISU class MRAP vehicles for evaluation:

http://www.defmin.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet?9_m=8998

The Finnish Defense Forces to order domestic armored MISU all terrain vehicles.
Minister of Defense Jussi Niinistö has accepted the proposal by the Finnish Defense Forces Logistics Institute to order Protolab Oy MISU all terrain vehicles, with protection against mines, shrapnel and bullets, for trial use.
*
The test kit consists of four PMPV 6X6 vehicles, which will be tested by the Finnish Defense Forces in field conditions in 2018-2020. The acquisition will provide information on the performance and availability of the vehicle for the future needs of the Defense Forces.

Vehicle information (from manufacturer)
Capacity: 2 + 10 men
Top speed: 110 km/h (~ 70mph)
Weight: 16 tn (metric)
Carry: 10 tn (metric)
Swimming: yes, even on most armored versions (level ?)
Imaging: TI (front)
Armor: Exote (composite material, http://www.protolab.fi/index_tiedostot/Prod_Ballistic.htm)

https://www.armyrecognition.com/finland_finnish_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/pmpv_6x6_misu_mrap_vehicle_personnel_carrier_techn ical_data_sheet_pictures_video_12611154.html
http://www.reservilainen.fi/uutiset/misu_on_uusi_suomalainen_panssariajoneuvo

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 5th, 2018, 04:13 AM

To say I've been following it's development for awhile would be an understatement. This program for the USA, USMC and CADF has finally reached it's apex now that the USMC has begun fielding their version. I personally would recommend a JAN 2018 FOC+ date allowing for unit integration and crew certification training.

So for my Marine friend I don't have the time to pursue this further (We have something of a "BIG" event over a couple of weeks that'll soon garner most of my attention at work.) everything has already been posted, this might already be in the game only requiring a date change (Don't know.) but I know this is the final piece of the puzzle.

For CADF looks like yours is closer to the USA version. And they did not convert all of them to APC's back in 2007.

The ref. covers all of the above. Again this from DID which means further info/links are in the highlighted words or phrases of the articles with refs. listed at the bottom.

So "get hot" my indubitable MARINE, the USMC needs them as noted above. ;) You'd almost think I liked the CORPS, that thought scares the crap out of me!?! :p
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lav-at-modernizing-the-usmcs-wheeled-tank-killers-07373/

I on the other hand need some sleep.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 6th, 2018, 05:11 PM

So "get hot" my indubitable MARINE, the USMC needs them as noted above. ;) You'd almost think I liked the CORPS, that thought scares the crap out of me!?! :p
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lav-at-modernizing-the-usmcs-wheeled-tank-killers-07373/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
Looks like I need to revise the dates on my LAV-ATA2 (currently 2015).
Thanks.

DRG

January 6th, 2018, 06:04 PM

It's NOT 2015 in the game USMC OOB...it's 2017........now 1/2018 as Pat recommended....that is " close enough "

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2018, 04:04 AM

I didn't want this to get lost from the ref. as well, that beyond dates issues as I see it turned out, that the USMC will also be using the same FCS and ATGM as the USA. Might already again be addressed, so please bear with me as I'm almost running on fumes now, from the ref. as I last posted..."Second, the M220A3 TOW system is being replaced by the M41 SABER", (Mobile ITAS TOW) which is much more capable and effective. TI/GSR 60.

Concerning CADF STRYKER TUA the military bought the "Bunker Buster" TOW for them back in late 2007/early 2008. This off one of the links from the same ref. now reposted below.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lav-at-modernizing-the-usmcs-wheeled-tank-killers-07373/

Wanted to emphasize these points in my last but, just spaced them out-sorry for inconvenience, just now taking the long road around to avoid any rework on these units down the road. It was enough to present them the first time as old info was interspersed with these being tested with a different ATGM program that fell through as I remember which lead to also deleting a couple of units.

Anyway my weekend is here and our bed is calling to me. Good something where ever you are.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 7th, 2018, 11:01 PM

Since WinSPMBT treats bunkers as armored units it means any AT weapon is a "Bunker Buster" assuming it has enough armor pen.

This is a bit of a problem at times as VS any opponent with lots of ATGMs using fortifications can actually make your units more vulnerable then if you just used foxholes/emplacements/trenches.

scorpio_rocks

March 6th, 2018, 09:08 AM

Do we need to add the "New" version of the BRM-3K "Lynx" with 57mm automatic cannon AU-220M Baikal turret system?

http://militaryleak.com/brm-3k-reconnaissance-vehicle.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=70&v=2f66zIhENZ4

DRG

March 6th, 2018, 10:09 AM

Let me know when it rolls through Moscow in a parade......

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 7th, 2018, 03:32 AM

This sounds like the Russian BRM-3K RYS which was a purposed Recon vehicle developed in late 80's early 90's and reveled in 1993. Then it operated with a 30mm/7.62mm turret. It's a prototype, that now seems to be a test bed for that newer weapons system.

"Early in 1995, it was disclosed that this vehicle is referred to as the BRM combat reconnaissance vehicle in the Russian Army, or the Lynx (Rys). It is also known as the BMP-3K."

Everyone loves a parade, however, look where that's gotten us with the ARMATA, ALTAY and ARJUN Mk II!?! They all have had them and we've been changing dates ever since, to include this patch if the inputs were used. It's something we REALLY like doing. :rolleyes:

Again Russian Defense Ministry Asst. Sec. said the ARMATA might not see serial production until 2025, as I posted last week.

Last I looked into this site it was Russian not too bad, but was wrong on the Turkish LEOPARDS, I have a hard time forgiving them for that one, though it was one of the best I thought I had at the time. :doh:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product701.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product5170.html
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41909
http://armyrecognition.com/idex_2015_news_official_online_show_daily_coverage/russia_to_supply_uae_with_au-220m_light_automatic_gun_turret.html

No reports on a quick check that the UAE got these for their ENIGNA 8x8 IFV units. Seems to be discussion that the T-15 ARMATA and KURGANETS 25 IFV's are slated to have this turret.

The ONLY problem with vacations, no matter how long, is that they end. :D Go back on Thur. but, not before I see the "tax man" later this evening. :eek:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 15th, 2018, 11:57 AM

After 3+ years of tracking the LAND 400 Program and having made my prediction of the winner, once all the other competitors were lined up, I can now say "I called the shot." Rheinmetall's been contracted to provide the ADF with at least 211 BOXER Recon vehicles armed with the LANCE turret. Those vehicles are expected to be around for 30 years and will gradually replace their current recon vehicles over time. Ref. 3 will paint the best picture overall of the developments and capabilities of the BOXER for the ADF.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/australian-defence-force-procure-211-new-boxer-crvs-4-09bn/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/rheinmetall_boxer_8x8_armoured_selected_by_austral ia_for_land_400_program.html
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

I'll stay on it until they get it.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

March 15th, 2018, 01:47 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15341&stc=1&d=1523534011

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 16th, 2018, 01:08 AM

Suhiir

March 16th, 2018, 01:22 AM

Personally I'm going to be VERY interested to see the changes to the passenger capacity of the upgraded USMC AAVs. Fitting the units that make up a "standard" USMC Rifle Platoon and Company plus the necessary transport into the ten slot formations has always been a challenge. There are some disadvantages to those 13-man squads.

DRG

March 16th, 2018, 07:22 AM

If a Rifle Co (Mec) is bought with the SU as the transport everyone fits including the HQ unit...It just requires a bit of creativity if you buy the 2 man sniper tms

DRG

March 16th, 2018, 07:25 AM

He's always showing off!?! :rolleyes: Don they look good. And if there's time for ICON work, which he likes, the mood must be good and the Patch testing is going well to this point, or it could just simply mean, I wasn't asking for them to be entered:?: :dk:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

The Icons have been in the files for 7 years......eventually I will get around to re-working the gun ( now done for the Boxer and the Puma )

RC4

March 28th, 2018, 03:47 PM

New Portuguese aditions:

US Army MRAPs on loan for Portuguese next Afganistan deployment
Crews allready training in Germany with MAxPro.

Portuguese new Pandur ATGM with new ITAS TOW

Thanks

Suhiir

March 28th, 2018, 05:54 PM

If a Rifle Co (Mec) is bought with the SU as the transport everyone fits including the HQ unit...It just requires a bit of creativity if you buy the 2 man sniper tms
Since two-man sniper teams (shooter & spotter) are standard since snipers were officially reintroduced I guess we'll just have to be creative!

Mobhack

April 1st, 2018, 10:41 AM

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-re-joins-boxer-programme

So the UK chooses Boxer for MIV (again)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 2nd, 2018, 11:43 AM

I wonder how much of that had to do with Australia having chosen the BOXER for their LAND 400 Program. There was some industry speculation that given the degrees of terrain etc. that the APC's from the start faced some of the hardest endurance tests to date for those manufacturers. It really says something about the down selected final two candidates and specifically for the BOXER in general. The UK definitely could've done worse, that being said, they could change their mind again as well. They are after all facing some tough competition as the first ref. indicates. Watch for the TERRIX 8x8.
http://armyrecognition.com/march_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_indus try/uk_will_release_official_request_for_8x8_armored_f or_miv_program_of_british_army.html
https://www.army-technology.com/news/artec-signs-deal-boxer-vehicle-production/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Just read Andy's post it sure would seem like the BOXER has the inside track. I had forgotten that the UK helped develop it. After reading it though, I remembered posting several articles on the topic in regards to the beginning of the FRES Program, how long ago has that been now!?! A sign you're getting older, THE CLOCK'S MOVING FASTER!!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 11th, 2018, 10:19 AM

Well I guess it now official, UK has apparently signed the contract with ARTEC. The BOXER is in. I don't know if this new camouflage scheme will be effective though in the field however!?!
https://www.army-technology.com/news/thales-welcomes-uk-mod-decision-procure-boxer-vehicles/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 11th, 2018, 10:38 AM

Yeah but the question remaining is......which version is going to be the "MIV"..... the basic APC shown in the photo or the IFV with the 30mm...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 12th, 2018, 02:17 AM

I honestly can't answer that question right now. With it not projected to be in service until 2023, there is sometime left for them to make that final decision. If they follow Australia's lead then the answer would be yes. The plan is for them to be integrated with the AJAX but I feel if the AJAX falls behind the simple answer would be yes. I can also see where there would be one for each section of BOXER's as well for fire support. for now 2C/10P. All we can do is wait and see.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

April 12th, 2018, 07:22 AM

There are a host of possibilities. The first one that springs to my mind is they may want a IFV version but using the same turret and 40mm gun as the Ajax.... or use the Ajax turret with a Rarden instead of a 30mm MK 30.....when common sense mates with national politics anything can happen.....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15340&stc=1&d=1523532102

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 13th, 2018, 01:17 AM

I should clarify, Australia's BOXER was evaluated with the German 30mm. That's what they are supposed to get along with a mortar, command and ambulance versions. I haven't anything to indicate just a base model for Australia.

UK is to get model as shown, my speculation is again that if AJAX falls behind I would expect UK to follow Australia by mounting the 30mm for the sake of continuity of equipment. I do agree, UK does have several options available to them in regard to weapons stations. We'll just have to see what happens

Regards,
Pt
:capt:

Suhiir

May 23rd, 2018, 10:12 PM

It's looking like the carry capacity issue for the AAV/SU may solve itself.

The USMC is considering eliminating the anti-tank squad of USMC infantry companies (currently 6x SMAW teams) and issuing the M3A1 MAAWS (i.e Carl Gustaf) as a squad level asset (replacing the AT4 in current WinSPMBT units). The SMAW may be retained in engineer units as currently the M3 doesn't have a thermobaric round.

DRG

May 24th, 2018, 04:24 PM

I'll wait until just before the next patch before changing anything.......so remind me again in late Feb 2019

Suhiir

May 24th, 2018, 09:14 PM

I'll wait until just before the next patch before changing anything.......so remind me again in late Feb 2019
Yep.
The idea is still under discussion.
Not sure how it'd be implemented. Increase the squad size to add an AT-man (the way they added the M-79 Grenadier)? Drop one AR or GL (seems most likely)?

Definitely NOT something to worry about till the "powers that be" decide what they'll actually do.

RC4

June 12th, 2018, 04:22 PM

New Portuguese aditions:

US Army MRAPs on loan for Portuguese next Afganistan deployment
Crews allready training in Germany with MAxPro.

Portuguese new Pandur ATGM with new ITAS TOW

Thanks

Allready protecting Cabul
Using MaxxPro & Oshkosh M-ATV by Portuguese Army

Suhiir

June 28th, 2018, 08:42 PM

Well the USMC finally selected a producer for the new ACV.
https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/1555187/marine-corps-systems-command-awards-contract-to-produce-acv/
BAE wins !

And a better look at the BAE vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoL2LIyou4

DRG

June 28th, 2018, 10:08 PM

Yeah...... I don't have to change the Icon......

Suhiir

June 28th, 2018, 10:32 PM

Yeah...... I don't have to change the Icon......
Yay!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 4th, 2018, 12:41 AM

Well I figured a better show a "pulse" out here, so I've just come across the following...

As many of you know I've been following developments in Australia for many years now going back to the development of the HAWKEI and some formation data I received from the Army concerning MBT unit composition going back to the Vietnam War. Of late it's been the LAND 400 program which recently down selected the BOXER. The LAND 400 Program has now reached Phase 3, this Phase is to decide which IFV they desire for the Army.

Before people get too excited, acquisition isn't slated until 2026. However their M113's are getting older, and though the BOXER is very capable, it's still not a true IFV, even with the 30mm RWS onboard, which is the plan for now and as tested.

However, the Australian Army has been very motivated and aggressive in it's recent acquisitions. Their evaluation programs are very aggressive but, the thing I look at is they're evaluating "proven off the shelve" equipment which might speed up the process, I dare say, for the possibility of acquisition and acceptance by calendar last quarter 2024 or Summer of 2025. Otherwise the ref. is only for FYI (Which it really is now anyway.)
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/australia_land_400_phase_3_competitors_show_up_for _land_forces_18.html

"Going Deep, Deep, Under" WQC speak.

Until next time.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

September 27th, 2018, 08:37 PM

China is being unusually active, the Chinese Marines (aka 'Smurfs' for their blue camouflage) have been seen with new or previously Army only equipment in their characteristic blue smurf camouflage lately.

Not including photos because China is China -- notorious for FUD or for limited prototypes being given troop trials and then disappearing forever.

Suhiir

September 30th, 2018, 02:53 AM

Ummm ... Don ... you did it again.

USMC AAV/SU program cancelled.
https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-marine-corps-cancels-aav-survivability-upgrade-programme.html

I'll ask you to recall it was your idea not mine to include the AAV/SU in the OOB.

DRG

September 30th, 2018, 06:52 AM

Whatever....it's now been renationalized and will not show up in the game
--it will likely be removed altogether before the next patch and if not....who cares..its re-nationalize and if slots are need down the road they can be re-used.

*I* added it as it was presented as a done deal. Yes that has happened before in the past as we try to stay on top of things but that frequently bites us...so I remain supremely disinterested in posts about the latest prototypes. I remain on the fence about many of the Russian entries but will leave them as is until we know more

Imp

October 2nd, 2018, 09:00 PM

Suhiir

October 3rd, 2018, 10:23 AM

It’s mad I am pretty sure USA has spent well in excess of $100 billion on canceled projects since Vietnam!!!
Wonder what the country would be like if it had been used on the public sector instead, infrastructure schools etc.
Policing maybe more Americans are murdered each year than have died in the last 10 years of conflicts if I recall correctly.
Nothing really new there. Lots of cancelled projects during WW II and while I can't think of anything specific I'm sure there were a good many during the American Civil War.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 10th, 2018, 10:11 PM

As I’m on vacation from all the FUN I’ve been having from work these past several months now I think free “milk and honey” for all here with the canceled DOD project money!! I thought it was still in the evaluation stage still. However it doesn’t surprise me ethier, and it’s ashamed because the CORPS needed the darn thing.

Have to spend the extra money on issues with the F-35, of which a F-35B crashed recently within the last 3 weeks I believe it was. Thankfully from initial reports no one was injured.

Pat
Darn IPAD ARYE 2 is too stupid to multi-task and do ‘Smilies” also!?!

Back on Vacation somewhere in upper Va. SHhhh!

RC4

October 27th, 2018, 08:52 AM

Portuguese Army will receive 139 Spanish made Armoured Vamtac Uro ST5, first allready arrived and was presented this week.
They will replace the Armoured Hummer in RCA (Central Africa Republic)

Thanks

DRG

October 27th, 2018, 10:37 AM

Is this a different vehicle than 730 ? very similar name but different it seems

RC4

October 27th, 2018, 11:25 AM

Its the latest version:

https://www.janes.com/article/83702/portuguese-army-to-receive-vamtac-st5-4-4-vehicles

http://www.fuerzasmilitares.com/Folleto-EUROSATORY-07-06-2016.pdf

The best articles are in spanish, not here.

Thanks

DRG

October 27th, 2018, 01:57 PM

OK....it's in the OOB now

RC4

October 27th, 2018, 06:33 PM

It has V-shaped hull, add-on armour
More Photos

Thanks

Gooseman2448

November 15th, 2018, 07:07 AM

Hey everyone,

I haven't been active in a long while but, I check in on the forum every week. I still keep track of updates to military vehicle and oob changes.

I just came across this article and thought I would post it.

Russian IFV to be upgraded with 57mm AA guns as main armament:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian_apc_and_ifv_armored_to_be_armed_with_57mm_ guns.html

Cheers

DRG

November 15th, 2018, 09:21 AM

"approved an armor development concept."...... means to me ( having been fooled more than once about things like this.... ) that this is going into the early testing phase. As time goes by we'll see if anything comes of it but I seriously doubt if they will be in service ( IF they pass field trials.....)before 2025

The more powerful 57mm gun will help Russian light armor fight APC and IFV and any adversary tank. It will destroy sights, heat imagers and other outside equipment or destroy highly protected Abrams tank by a side hit.

one of the things we are looking at this year is potentially adding the ability to damage some of the peripheral systems like "sights, heat imagers and other outside equipment"... we will see what might be possible once we get to that point.

as for

or destroy highly protected Abrams tank by a side hit.

you can do that now using an mid 80's era ASU-57 using SABOT on a side shot on a 2018 era Abram or T90 as well... so this is nothing new but going from 30mm rounds to 57 mm round will cut down on the amount of ammo carried.

You can knock out a Tiger tank in WW2 with a 6 pounder ( 57mm ) as well..nothing new

more on this..... a report from 2014
http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/07/57mm-autocannon-turret-from-russia.html

according to that article, the initial test turret system carried enough ammo for under 1 minute sustained fire (20+73) but with autocannon we simulate bursts of fire so something like that might carry about half the rounds ( bursts ) as a 30mm vehicle

Imp

November 15th, 2018, 08:15 PM

The round size is the issue, 57mm is not twice the size of 30mm probably closer to 3 times the size so ammo loadout is an issue.
That said despite the reduced ammo loadout France discovered putting a remote turret with advanced fire control on was more effective as it required less ammo expenditure for a kill.
Then there is telescopic ammo, cant see Russia going to the expense.

DRG

November 15th, 2018, 08:35 PM

If with the 57 mm a "tactical burst" is 4 rounds for that vehicle/gun combo then if the ammo loads indicated in that article are correct the vehicle would carry 24 in a 12/12 split as rough guesstimate based on sketchy info at best

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 2nd, 2018, 01:00 AM

Don,
If you will allow it, it's inline with what I've done in the MBT forum, the following...
A1. BRAZIL/ADD/NOV 2018/GUARANI VBTP-MR/COPY UNIT 576/REMOVE UT-30/ADD/REMAX TURRET with 12.7mm + 7.62mm + SMOKE GRANADE LAUNCHERS 76mm x 4/SYSTEM INFO REF. 2// Ref. 2 contains FURTHER system specs.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/brazilian_2nd_mechanized_cavalry_rgt_receives_new_ guarani_apcs.html
http://ares.ind.br/new/en/land-systems/remax.php
https://www.armyrecognition.com/brazilian_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/guarani_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sh eet_description_specifications_pictures.html

Does the above format make it easier?

It feels good to be doing some of this again!! But then CINCLANTHOME is in VA. for the GD's "Sweet 16" on Monday!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: Wait a minute, there's another one of those "ANEMIA" things again, sorry, just informed this one is authorized.
Director of the Censor Dept.

DRG

December 2nd, 2018, 06:27 AM

So there is no 30mm version ?
that seems to be the VBCI whereas the 12.7mm version is VBTP but I don't see anything about the 30mm version in service

In December 2012, The Italian Defence Company IVECO has delivered the first batch of VBTP-MR Guarani 6x6 armoured vehicle to the Brazilian army. This delivery is the first of the contract of $246 million signed by IVECO Defence Vehicles and the Department of Science and Technology of the Brazilian army to manufacture 86 units of the Guarani for 2014. In March 2014, The Brazilian Army has delivered the first batch of Guarani Armored Personnel Transport Vehicles to a mechanized infantry unit in Western Parana state.

So how do we get from March 2014 to Nov 2018 ?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 2nd, 2018, 01:43 PM

Don,

For 03/2014 UNITS 576 & 577 with UT-30, they are good as I submitted them. Also with 13 at 03/2013 my thinking was and I believe this came up when submitted in my last "Patch Post" they were enough to stand up a unit, my thinking now is a "company" of them if you will.

The following from ref below...
"Aug/Sept 2014: State of the program. At the end of September Iveco delivered the 100th of a total of 128 vehicles to be delivered by the end of 2014 (16 pilot VBTPs, 86 evaluation vehicles + 26 addons). The 2015 budget sets aside BRL 200M ($82M) for 56 vehicles.
An entry on the Brazilian Army’s weblog explained in August how the Guarani was “finally operational.” The 33º BI Mec (Batalhão de Infantaria Mecanizado – Mechanized Infantry Battalion) received its 1st 13 vehicles back in March 2014 and should have 42 of them by 2015. They are being tested in the southern state of Paraná near Paraguay and seem to meet expectations. The vehicle can cross streams as expected, though it has a slight tendency to sink further on its right due to the engine’s position.
Sources: Defensa.com: “Iveco Latin America construye el blindado VBTP-MR Guaraní número 100” | Exército Brasileiro: “Guarani finalmente operacional” [in Portuguese]."

From SIPRI Israel to Bazil timeframe 2000-2017 with no REMAX showing...
"Israel
R: Brazil (216) UT-25/UT-30 IFV turret (2010) 2014-2016 (30)
$260 m deal; UT-30 version; for VBTP-MR IFV produced in Brazil"
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/vbtp-a-new-apc-for-brazil-06048/

Why no REMAX? Well to start with they should have them already, again from ref above...
Oct 24/12: REMAX RWS. Elbit’s Brazilian subsidiary Ares Aeroespacial e Defensa Ltda. announces a $25 million contract to supply its stabilized REMAX remote weapon stations to the Brazilian Army. This is the 1st production order, and deliveries will be made from 2012-2014.

They didn't get them because of Brazils economic crisis (There he goes again about economics! Well it matters you can't afford to but it or maintain w/o a good economy. Look what happened to the ROOKIVALK AH of the SANDF, grounded the whole fleet for 18 months, long enough that I made the case at the time to change it's dates for that period of time and we did. When the economy improved they had enough financing to not only get them flying again but also accomplished a significant upgrade to them as well, also entered in the game.

The cost to South Africa? Well they were going to show case them at the opening/closing ceremonies when they hosted the "World Cup" and couldn't. There were at least 3 countries of record (Turkey being one of them and bought the AW-129's (From memory.) instead.) looking to buy it during this time, and timing is everything, and they didn't. To this day, and this is one of the best AH helos out there, none have been exported.

More on Brazils issues...
https://www.thebalance.com/brazil-s-economy-3306343

This is just one part of the formula I use in submitting dates. Not always right but, generally pretty close.

Don I hope this answered your question,, and if you missed it, also in the first ref above, they did an update dated last fall I believe, showing the contracts were signed for the REMAX. This along with my last post should work for the VBTP-MR with REMAX as submitted. I think you might have missed "COPY" UNIT 576.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

December 27th, 2018, 07:09 AM

https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2018_news_russia_online_show_daily/new_t-15_ifv_infantry_figfhting_vehicle_with_57mm_cannon _at_army-2018.html

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/armata-t-15-and-kurganets-25-ifv-to-get-57mm-au-220m-baikal-remotely-operated-turret-with-smart-ammunition/

Even for Armata T-15 there has been some testing with 57mm weapons.

In game we have IMHO too low T-15 protection values in comparison with T-14 tank. Remember that we are talking about the same shared platform. The only difference is that the chassis is "inverted". The rear of the tank with the engine, in the IFV is on the front. The front of the tank is the back of the IFV but there is a door for the soldiers. So there is obviously a difference in armor values but in my opinion in game there is too much difference between the two models

From http://www.military-today.com/apc/armata_heavy_ifv.htm

"The T-15 Armata is one of the most protected, if not the most protected IFV in the world. It seems that in terms of protection it is superior to most heavy armored personnel carrier and heavily-armored vehicles such as German Puma IFV.

It has newly-developed base armor, made of steel, ceramics and composite materials. Also it has Malakhit add-on explosive reactive armor, that is claimed to be of new generation. A front-mounted engine provides additional protection."

In my opinion, like Namer has armor values similar to Merkava, ARMATA T-15 IFV should have protection values similar to ARMATA T-14 TANK

Suhiir

December 27th, 2018, 10:24 PM

I keep thinking about how happy the guys in M3's and Sd.Kfz. 251's were that they weren't in an unarmored truck, and now we have "APCs" with almost as much armor as a top tier MBT.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 1st, 2019, 04:07 AM

Well I guess I'll kick off 2019 with the first post in TO&Es with a couple of FYI stories. The first was brought up in Amit's (Gingertanker) IDF OOB Thread with Don and the next is for my MARINE friend lest she thinks I forgot about her. After all you can't keep a good rivalry down, now can you!?!

Israel: NAMER IFV test fired SPIKE LR from new turret. The launcher can fire two of these missiles that can be reloaded from within the unmanned turret protecting the crew. I estimate the following: 1) It will carry at least eight missiles and I see the distinct possibility it could be ten based on the fact again, this is an unmanned turret. 2) There are still other system checks to be done, so I believe we could possibly see it in service as early as 10/2019 but I feel it'll be closer to 12/2019. It'll also be "armed" with the TROPHY HV. Note: Ref. 3 is unusually a little behind in it's reporting, however, it's still an outstanding source on the progression of the NAMER.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/firing_test_of_spike_anti-tank_missile_mounted_on_namer_ifv_armored.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2017_global_defence_security_industry_-_military_-_army_news/namer_ifv_30mm_cannon_unmanned_turret_israeli_army _mod_10208171.html
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/namer-israeli-leopard-coming-to-the-usa-06620/

Also on EITAN I know I posted some info on this to include the IDF OOB Thread and gave a FOC projected date. I just didn't have a chance to verify when I did that, so, I don't know if some of that decision was based also on the following ref. If so my apologies in advance. From the ref. (Now deleted when this posts.) below...
"Israel’s new Eitan armored personnel carrier is in final field testing with the Nahal infantry brigade. Its series production is scheduled to start in 2021. Once the Israeli army has received enough Eitans to replace the last of their old M113s, the vehicle will be made available for export."
https://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/israeli_8x8_apc_eitan_scheduled_for_series_product ion_in_2021.html

USMC: Well the CORPS has been chasing their tail on a replacement for the AAVs for almost a decade now. Even the ACV Program has had many developmental issues to include changing mission requirements etc. The process has now been settled and the first step of possibly three has begun with the ACV 1.1 with the BAE Systems vehicle having won the competition. From ref. 1 below...
"U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico Marine Base are ordering 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACVs) and accompanying vetronics to replace the Corps's ageing fleet of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). A $140.4 million contract has been signed with BAE Systems Platforms & Services segment in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Expected delivery of the first vehicles is fall 2019 and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force’s 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., is expected to be the first to get them the following year."
So depending if everything goes alright, then USMC SYSCOM will be conducting the OPEVAL and possibly IOC evaluations. I feel though the IOC/FOC will be done by the "3rd AAB".
So I'm projecting FOC 01/2021. Oh that'll include the Grenade Launcher also being equipped.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_in dustry/bae_systems_to_supply_30_more_acv_1.1_amphibious_c ombat_vehicles_to_usmc.html

Also this I believe I had gotten this fixed with Don already as I've been posting on the CORPS LAV-AT for some years (Since around 2011/2012) now. I believe as in the game now we had changed the date to reflect the following ref. and others at the time. If not Oops! and :doh:. Will check this later in the morning. In the meantime here's on of the better refs. on the topic...
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lav-at-modernizing-the-usmcs-wheeled-tank-killers-07373/

Looking at the "TYPE" now I remember this was a "minor" PITA at the time. Anyway LAV-AT2 as we had to call them, UNIT 018 01/2018 is good as entered.

Well I did say "a little later this morning.". and that last was well, a little later. ;)

Happy New Year everyone!! :D

FOLLOW UP ON THIS POST!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

MarkSheppard

February 19th, 2019, 05:52 PM

Chinese companies are floating preliminary HIFV concepts:

Concept of NORINCO VT-4 Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle (HIFV) displayed at IDEX 2019. Noticed the shared chassis with VT-4 Main Battle Tank, which would provide the vehicle with significant protection and mobility.

It's a long way from actual production; just here to show you what NORINCO is thinking about in the East....

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 15th, 2019, 06:54 PM

This is by way of an UPDATE concerning the AJAX. JANE's is reporting with the following ref. the same thing I reported using a different source before the end of the year, where I submitted a START date change to the right to JUNE 2020 I believe it was.

From the article "British Army crews will begin trialing the turreted reconnaissance version of the Ajax family of armoured vehicles during the third quarter of this year, according to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)." That's in 2019. And...

"...the ministry told Jane’s that the first squadron-sized sub-unit will be equipped with the full complement of the variant in early 2020 ahead of the initial operating capability (IOC) being declared the following July."

I took a gamble on FOC being reached at that time (As submitted.) because the UK has been staying ahead of schedule in the testing program to date. Apparently it's meeting expectations and proving very reliable thus far.

Please remember I have no access to the game or my notes at this time. I will endeavor in the meantime to recover that post which I think is in the MBT Thread that also contained a START Date change for the Israeli ENTAN.
https://www.janes.com/article/87527/first-ajax-reconnaissance-variant-to-begin-british-army-trials-by-september
https://des.mod.uk/what-we-do/army-procurement-support/ajax/
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-gb/products/armoured-vehicles.html

Ref. 3 (Manufacturer) is indicating trials will be ongoing until 9/2020.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 16th, 2019, 10:21 AM

I found the "offending" post to my last, it's in the IDF OOB project by GingerTanker on Pg. 8 Post #80 of this forum. Though tracking for EITAN not so much for the AJAX. So much for "crystal balls" especially when overcome by newer references (For both that also pushed them back.) since that post was submitted last Nov.

Just following up is all.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 23rd, 2019, 12:55 AM

Looks like this morning I'll be brief for a change as I have some pressing issues to take care before I hit the rack. While looking into the Turkish M-60 variant issue I came across the following from Ref. 1 and their coverage of IDEF 2019.

IDF EITAN is still in the Prototype/OPEVAL phase. First "Iron Fist Light Decoupled" (IFLD) has been selected for the EITAN. The reference is also stating that the USA has just ahead of the IDF, chosen the same system for the BRADLEY AFV.
https://armyrecognition.com/august_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_indu stry/eitan_8x8_wheeled_ifv_will_be_fited_with_iron_fist _active_protection_system.html
https://armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/eitan_8x8_apc_ifv_armored_vehicle_personnel_carrie r_pictures_video.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

August 23rd, 2019, 07:29 AM

IDF EITAN is still in the Prototype/OPEVAL phase. First "Iron Fist Light Decoupled" (IFLD) has been selected for the EITAN. The reference is also stating that the USA has just ahead of the IDF, chosen the same system for the BRADLEY AFV.

USA unit 887

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 17th, 2019, 02:37 PM

First, Don thank you for your last reply previous this post.

This next is a "good news, bad news" story. First the good news as Australia has "down selected" the Rheinmetall Lynx KF41 IFV to compete against the Hanwha Defense' Redback IFV from South Korea in the LAND 400 Phase 3 competition.
https://www.janes.com/article/91297/rheinmetall-and-hanwha-shortlisted-for-australian-ifv-requirement
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/rheinmetall_lynx_kf41_infantry_fighting_vehicle_do wnselected_for_australian_land_400_phase_3_program .html

If the BOXER competition (LAND 400 Phase 2.) from a couple of years ago is any indication, that'll take a year. Further testing and modification by the ADF with any additional contract issues, that could possibly add another 6 months.

Bottom-line for the ADF, they want them in the field by early 2026, and there you have the "Bad News" for us.

More on the REDBACK but, note the company site does not mention the 40mm MG or APS, however, on newer articles both are noted as available on the net. I provide it because it has more of the data we need to build it.
https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/products/antiaircraft-artillery-as21.do
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/south_korea_offer_as21_redback_tracked_armored_ifv _to_replace_australian_m113as4.html

I expect as I was asked to look into for the ADF BOXER, which ever they choose it'll have the largest MG the type is designed and tested to carry. So I believe then, whichever will carry the 40mm and APS.

My pick I feel has to go to the LYNX KF41. The main reason for this is the BOXER faced tough competition during the Phase 2 part of the LAND 400 Program and won it handling. Now Rheinmetall is embedded and established in Australia in the production of the BOXER.

But the AS21 REDBACK is an excellent IFV but, I'm not sure it's quite as good as the LYNX and again, also for the reason stated in the prior para.

JAPAN has selected it's 3rd competitor in it's APC/IFV competition the Patria AMVXP (This is still a concept vehicle).
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_i ndustry/patria_armored_modular_vehicle_amvxp_to_be_tested_ in_japan.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/finland_finnish_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/patria_amv_xp_8x8_wheeled_armored_vehicle_concept_ data.html

The others are the...
https://www.weaponews.com/news/65354687-japan-announced-a-tender-for-the-supply-of-armored-vehicles.html

Note Japan's MAV is the "cousin" if you will to the MCV I submitted for the last patch which is a "gun carrier". I see the MAV has "similar lines" to the BOXER at a "quick" look.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2020, 10:33 PM

This just as a "heads up" concerning the UK AJAX. Janes in reporting with the UK having only five AJAX's as test beds, the 6th is now delayed along with the first production set.

UK MOD still is hoping for JULY 2010 IOC date for the AJAX.
Not sure where we're at with the AJAX but, I remember we did a push back (Or discussed it.) on it within the last couple of years, so this might not be an issue at this time.

However, reporting now as JANE's is the only one doing so at this moment. Also due to shorter (And only because I like this word.) nature of their posts expiry date.
https://www.janes.com/article/93758/ajax-deliveries-to-british-army-delayed

Back to whatever it was I was doing. :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 21st, 2020, 01:23 AM

It's July 2020 right now. I may push it forward or not

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2020, 01:51 AM

Don,
Don't push it forward, that's in line now for the "projected" IOC date, the real issue here is will we need to "push it back" for FOC.

Also see Post #472 above on this page. That was convenient for a change! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

AtomicTank

March 14th, 2020, 02:38 PM

Sorry if someone has already made a request

Could you add
EBRC Jaguar for France and Belgium

Source:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/jaguar_ebrc_6x6_reconnaissance_combat_armoured_veh icle_ebmr_scorpion_technical_data_sheet_pictures.h tml

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actu-terre/le-ministre-de-la-defense-devoile-le-griffon-et-le-jaguar (in French)

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/fil-defense/scorpion-commande-des-premiers-vehicules-blindes-griffon-et-jaguar (In French)

https://defpost.com/belgium-orders-382-vbmr-griffon-and-60-ebrc-jaguar-armored-vehicles/

Thanks

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 14th, 2020, 05:14 PM

We are tracking it since program inception. It's probably about 2-3 years out from FOC at this point which is why it's not in the OOB.

I see you used Army Recognition, which the web tracking site "ALEXA.com" (I believe.) has declared it the #1 Defense site on the web.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_indus try/army_recognition_most_visited_popular_professional _defense_news_website_according_to_alexa.com.html

Also submissions are closed for the next patch. And the Andy/Don "TS Skunk Works Project" is probably by now in the "testing phase" for the next patch release.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

EDIT: Sorry should've been more specific in this earlier. I was referring to possible FOC for France.

DRG

March 14th, 2020, 05:24 PM

quote........."The new vehicles will be delivered to Belgian Land component between 2025 and 2030 and will replace its Piranha IIIC armored personnel carriers, Pandur I reconnaissance vehicles and Dingo 2 infantry mobility vehicles.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 15th, 2020, 01:34 AM

From JANE's it might provide some insight and a little general "tactical" doctrine data as well.

So what you have here is a brief on the French "Scorpion" modernization program.

Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rrD4tA4M1o#action=share

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

AtomicTank

March 15th, 2020, 02:57 AM

Yep its just a reference that i get using these website form google.
Welp i'm to late now for requesting additional unit
But i thanked for the attention you gave to me
Cheers:)

Suhiir

March 22nd, 2020, 05:56 PM

Apparently the USMC decided to cancel the ACV1.2 (a fully tracked, more seaworthy variant of the ACV1.1) due to the ACV1.1 being able to handle sea-state 3 conditions (the current AAV can handle sea state 4). There are plans for an ACV2.0 sometime after 2025 with higher water speeds and capable of sea state 4.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

DRG

March 22nd, 2020, 06:44 PM

Well good thing then that we don't have something else to rip that we put in before it was made operational. That is why EFVP is still in the OOB but not active.....as a reminder

Suhiir

March 22nd, 2020, 06:57 PM

Well good thing then that we don't have something else to rip that we put in before it was made operational. That is why EFVP is still in the OOB but not active.....as a reminder
We also have the advantage of dealing with shorter future time frames then we did. Even with the extension to 2025 we're only looking a few years into the future.

DRG

March 22nd, 2020, 06:58 PM

And with all that is going on ALL of these future projects may be put on hold or cancelled

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 22nd, 2020, 09:51 PM

I have to agree, the financial strains "Corna" this is putting on the world economy's is huge! It's not now going to happen by tomorrow (Which means another HUGE drop of the Dow.) as hoped, but, we're about to approve the largest economic stimulus bill in the history of the U.S.

Our current National Debt (U.S) is sitting around 23.3 Trillion Dollars, this bill will equal 8.58% of the current debt at 2 Trillion Dollars. That bill is designed to ONLY cover a period of 10 -12 weeks. If there's no improvement of the current situation a follow-up bill might be revisited.

We can absolutely see a reduction and or "slow down" in defense acquisitions around the world if this is not resolved in the next few months.

The money for the current Defense Authorization bill has already been allocated for this Fiscal Year (Until 30 SEP 2020.) but, that being said, the Department of Defense does represent the second highest "individual component" (This includes the Overseas Contingency Operations of our budget. Pays for wars etc.) behind Social Security the electrify "third rail" of politics here.

Logic follows that behind social programs, the defense budgets of most countries especially in parts of Asia and Europe will find themselves in the same situation as us potentially.

And you have to wonder what's going on in Russia as, at least here there's not much news except for the current "Oil War" between Russia and neighboring countries against Saudi Arabia and oddly in regards to the last OPEC.

By all appearances Oil in Russia is going for about $55.00 per barrel which is about 3 to 4 dollars less then they budgeted for. Oil and some other national resources is what's paying for their defense budget. I still am not seeing ARMATA/T-50 and ARMATA IFV (T-15) before 2025, especially with this these issues currently going on in Russia.
https://www.rbth.com/business/331683-coronavirus-affecting-russias-economy
https://guidetopetersburg.com/coronavirus-covid-19-in-russia-current-situation/
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/22/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-march-22-a69117

So we might see a "blood bath" in some OOB's. And in line with this Thread, AJAX wasn't isn't even to start IOC until this Fall. How will this affect that? It's too soon to tell except, you can bet I'll be watching this and other programs very closely over the next several months.

I devoted 15 years of my career concerning financial issues relating to our sailors.

If you are investing for your retirement, "stay the course" there's a reason it's called "dollar cost averaging" and this is a good time to be invested if your "time horizon" until retirement is still few years off.

I hope everyone (And your families.) can hang in there, it will end hopefully in the next few months. As many of my former compatriots (Sub Folks) are posting "Self Isolation" at home is nothing!! We are home with our families, we can eat what we want, we can look out the windows, we can watch TV, access computers, listen to music, read a good book, use a phone, we even watch Sunrises and Sunsets and so much more!!

We couldn't (And still can't.) do most of any of that on a Submarine.

And like working on a Submarine the DOD expects me to come to work and I'll be there for the duration. As I know many of you out here have to do the same.

Stay Strong!!

As a CO once told me and in writing "I was the conscious of the command."

I don't assume that role here, but I hope you know where I'm coming from.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

March 22nd, 2020, 11:11 PM

The last info I found on Ajax was late summer so the date in the OOB has been adjusted to September. If it's correct or changes is irrelevant as the OOB is going out with it entering service 9/120

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 7th, 2020, 12:45 AM

I hinted at this in the AAR: Walking Dead Thread however, thankfully I remembered in the last couple of minutes it came from JANE's and is therefore perishable on the web to non-subscribers.

I had already posted in this Thread in late 2019 that the AJAX Program was way behind schedule and wouldn't be ready for OPEVAL until SEP/OCT 2020. Everything that could go wrong has from money, to technical and equipment issues associated with the AJAX.

They currently they operate at least 6 Pre-Production Prototypes, below from SEP/OCT 2019.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/scout_sv_light_tracked_armoured_vehicle_variants_u/ares_ajax_scout_sv_pmrs_protected_mobility_reconna issance_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specification s_pictures.html
https://battle-updates.com/update/military-vehicle-news-564/

I will continue to track this closing. I would use while you can since at a minimum we're looking at a START to the right of where we are now or the deletion there of.

JANE's has "scooped" this so far, but as I get more (Which could be in a few minutes.) but as it "hits" my other sources I'll post them as they become available.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/29cf9003-fcc5-4c72-af61-e7a41a7aa603

Nothing more current then JANE's as posted above. The 2nd Ref above is from mid-JAN 2020 and verifies 6 Pre-Production Prototypes as well as providing other dates now "out the window".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

June 7th, 2020, 08:00 AM

Same thing with the South African Badger

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/9620bec8-da12-4c25-81ff-5abbf162ef0d

I have now pushed the start date into the future

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 7th, 2020, 11:10 AM

Yeah, you got ahead of me on that. I already knew for sometime about BADGER as well but, just didn't have the time to seek out more data on how bad that situation had gotten until I looked further looked into after I saw the same JANE's article myself.

Seems like mid 2022 to mid 2023 seems where the data shows some including these are where we've had to push some other equipment including tanks i.e. ALTAY, ARMATA etc., The impact of COVID-19 (Along with all the other normal issues in development of these programs.) is going to play havoc on Defense Budgets (Already has.) which is projected to have an impact on ours as well for the upcoming 2021 Fiscal Year.

All we can do is watch and see how far the "pendulum swings" on some of these programs over the next couple of years.

All I have on BADGER some contain interesting data on the MG making it unique. Also one of the refs. shows the configuration of the different turrets that will be fitted on the BADGER. I believe a couple of the prototypes are of the ATGW type.
By date order Oldest to Newest...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/south-africa/Badger
("According to Denel, the first battalion of 88 vehicles will be completed in 2019. The entire production order is set to be complete by 2022".)
http://www.military-today.com/apc/badger.htm
(Expected in 2019.)
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/denel-land-systems-still-grappling-with-badger-vehicle/
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/product-baseline-close-for-badger-infantry-combat-vehicle/
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/9620bec8-da12-4c25-81ff-5abbf162ef0d

This next I came across during my BADGER search on the RATEL Program for those interested.
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1166

Well that at least let me clean out some files that aren't staring me in the face any longer! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

June 7th, 2020, 12:53 PM

Every time we try to get ahead of things it goes wrong somehow. The badger issue is deeper than just the IFV. We have an ATGM version, and APC version and an SP mortar version and they had all started 1//113 but the mortar and Missle variants show being turreted here.........

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/south-africa/Badger

Which was not the info we had when it went in and all the armed variants are turreted including the Section variant APC

Variants
There are six variants of the Badger, of which five are armed, namely the Section variant (30 mm), Fire support variant (30 mm), Mortar variant (60 mm), Command variant (12.7 mm) and Missile variant (Ingwe). The Ambulance variant is not armed.

.....and the mortar version is not 120mm....it's a 60 mm DLS breech loader but it carries 256 bombs ( 255 is the largest number we can use but "close enough" ) you won't run out of ammo with one of those

wonderful........

I will push them all forward and adjust the formations and I doubt this will be the last time that happens

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 8th, 2020, 12:35 AM

Why Don and I enjoy OOB work so much...
Looking back at Post 493 above on the BADGER, Ref 1/6 variants, Ref 2/5 variants and Ref 4/9 variants.

Carry ranges from 6-10 troops (Though that ref did indicate it would be a tight fit @ 10.) for the "Section" variant.

Now I'll lean on Ref 1 for those numbers as listed on the bottom of their article as 4 crew + 7 troops.

The "Support" variant won't have a ammo issue as well, it'll only carry a two man dedicated ATGW team attached on very one of the type, also from Ref 1. 5 less seats/troops make a lot of room for extra 30mm rds. and whatever their ATGW teams carry.

I'm leaning on Ref 1 for the BADGER because of the listed Bibliography though the refs are all good, the one that caught my eye was the following: "Smit, A. 2018. Interview with Badger, project manager Denel. Date 9 Feb. 2018."

This is why, though I compared them against my sources, this ref. was so important to me in unraveling the SADF MBT issues as submitted for the last patch, it was the SADF and SA industry interviews that were important to me plus they also included/used a couple of others I had independently researched myself.

So here's that Ref 1 again.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/south-africa/Badger

It's always good to have a "tie breaker" if the situation warrants.

The bright side is it's only, actually now 4 years behind schedule. better then ARJUN at 30 years I suppose!?! :rolleyes:

Daughter is "kidnapping" CINCLANTHOME for a week so I'm off to bed to send them off.

Thanks Don!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Karagin

June 9th, 2020, 08:19 AM

How is the game mimicking the CROW system, the remote-operated weapon platform that keeps the gunner inside the vehicle? The system has been put on some M1A2s, or at least the battalion I was before retiring had them.

Mobhack

June 9th, 2020, 10:15 AM

An RWS on an APC would be modelled by a coax type MG, some stabiliser, some FC and some night vision. In other words the APC has a "turret" like a tank does. The coax type MG rather than an AAMG will not lose shots for being buttoned if the APC is suppressed (though some APC with an RWS may still have a class 4 AAMG).

An RWS may of course also have an AGL (coax or the main weapon), or a small autocannon or HMG.

Tank MG for an "RWS" might swap out a class 4 AAMG for a coax or MMG class weapon. Tanks already have the FC, RF, Stabiliser and vision post the 50s.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 28th, 2020, 02:10 AM

Well I learned a new "term" from this next article from which I've been preaching on for years concerning the ABRAMS. Simply because a piece of equipment has been accepted for "fielding" doesn't make it so until a set number of units or unit it appears in this case, are fulling equipped with said piece of equipment.

I believe that process took almost 10yrs for the ABRAMS M1A2 SEP 2 with 6-8 Battalions being fully equipped at FOC.

And we're several years into it with ABRAMS M1A2C/SEP 3, with still more years to go, at least 2 more by my calculations.

So the new term I'll be using IAW the USA is First Unit Equipped or FUE. This is the first time I've seen FUE in a ref. but if there's one thing I've learned about JANE's, is they don't lie. So there you have FUE.

So the story concerns the STRYKER 30mm that FUE has been pushed from they say late FY 2022, and I'm assuming last QTR., that would've meant JUL-SEP 2022 planned FUE.

According to JANE's it'll now be earliest FY 2023 2nd QTR. MAR/APR 2023 for FUE/FOC.

Contract still has not been awarded as the companies are still competing for the contract. RAYTHEON, whom some thought they had the "inside track" to get the contract has dropped out. This is bad for any country "generally" for any military equipment.

The service will want a "wash out" to include why they dropped out i.e. funding, technical, future earnings to offset R&D and PROTOTYPE costs issues etc. some or all, bottom-line it simply delays the process or I've seen can cancel the project (However that won't happen here and I've seen projects restarted that were "DOA" only to be revitalized sometimes years later: India's ARJUN anyone?)

Anyway here's your ref...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/ea4ed8af-a2f7-474e-b02b-43d052efe123

And before anyone says anything, please remember, we're only talking about a weapons system here literally, and not a fully redesigned/RESET MBT.

AJAX: Don't normally like using "blogs" however I found this conversation interesting especially in that MOD awarded what would amount to normally be "follow on" contracts before they even had a PROTOTYPE. If true that's a real stupid move due to the risks involved that we now know have. MOD you get the :doh: :trophy: again if true-incredible!?!
https://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=107840
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27173/British_Army___s_ATHENA_AJAX_Vehicle_to_Begin_Test s_Soon#.Xx_Kd1qSmUk

Still looks like JANE's has the lead on this but, the second ref discussing where their at with the C&C variant doesn't leave me with a "warm fuzzing" picture concerning when we'll see them. But for now still sticking to my dated suggested earlier.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

July 28th, 2020, 07:19 AM

which "STRYKER 30mm" are you referring to ?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 28th, 2020, 11:46 AM

Stryker DVHA1 with turret mounted 30 mm XM813 cannon. System (Stryker Dragoon) falls under the Medium Calibre Weapons System (MCWS) Program.

2/25/2019
https://www.defensedaily.com/army-looking-potential-new-medium-caliber-weapon-system-double-v-hull-strykers/army/

5/23/2019
" The service spent 18 months to put together its Stryker Dragoon using off-the-shelf solutions such as the remote turret from Kongsberg in Norway and the 30mm cannon from Orbital ATK, now owned by Northrop Grumman.

The vehicles were shipped off to Europe for a year-long evaluation.

Feedback from the evaluation suggested some improvements are needed, particularly related to situational awareness. The turret for the cannon takes up a lot of roof and hatch space and also affects how equipment is stowed, for instance."
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/05/23/us-army-picks-5-companies-to-study-stryker-weapon-system-integration/

6/22/2020 Congress involved over evaluation process and that 2 of 6 competitors have dropped out of the evaluation process. The question as I noted independent of this article in my last post, is WHY?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/06/22/stryker-weapons-upgrades-face-scrutiny-under-house-proposal/

2/20/2020 Related story concerning the USA canceling the Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) (Replacement for BRADLEY.) (Also called and POSSIBLE consequences to STRYKER DRAGOON Program.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-did-us-army-cancel-one-its-most-important-modernization-projects-124936#:~:text=A%20similar%20situation%20appears%2 0to%20be%20occurring%20in,a%20turret%20that%20can% 20support%20a%2030mm%20cannon.

Look for an improved BRADLEY M2A4 from 2/10/2019
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/armys-plan-super-bradley-fighting-vehicle-are-dead-44082

Now all of this makes perfectly good sense to me for what JANE's reported in my last post from last night. I can see a possible longer delay for STRYKER DRAGOON as the timing couldn't be worse, we're in a Presidential election cycle.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: