APC Development and related topics. [Archive]

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 19th, 2009, 06:23 PM

Like MRAP development, APC design is accelerating just as rapidly. Many of the technologies found in the MRAP are finding their way into APC designs currently available and in the future. These are to include but not limited to modular construction, new hull designs, mine and IED resistant, reactive and hybrid armor packages with on-board Battlefield Management Systems (BMS). This is to show what is available and coming to both inform and hopefully get into SPMBT. So for your review first up:
British MOD evaluates two foreign designs for their Future Rapid Effect Systems (FRES) program. FRES Scout Vehicle will be made for recon, Med. armor & maneuver support. Two bids will be submitted in Nov. with a possible 2 Billion Pound contract awarded by the first quarter of 2010. MOD plans for 1300 FRES variants with the first 270 being scout vehicles. Vehicles to enter service in 2015 made in the UK to replace the Scimitar and Spartan. BAE Swedish Op to submit CV90 chassis vehicle. With a British designed new turret that utilizes a new auto 40mm CT40 Case Telescoped Weapon System (CWTS) developed by CTA International in joint venture with BAE and Nextar Industries. Turret designed for accurate firing on the move which will be a first for a Med. armored vehicle in British service. Max combat Wt. 32-35 tons speed 70km/h on road and will have ADS for active protection system. Will be similar to Swedish and Dutch CV9035 MKIII. Note picture on the right shows the MOD version test firing in Sweden with the British turret. Pictures as follows:
8994 8995
General Dynamics UK to submit ASCOD-2 an upgraded version of the Austrian ULAN and Spanish Pizarro. Max combat Wt. 31 tons speed 70km/h with 33km/h in reverse. And is fully battle field integrated. Note ASCOD-2 is in service with the Spanish and German armies now. Pictures as follows
8996 8997
Sources: defence-update.com and Jane's armored vehicle online edition. Will have news from Singapore later.
Regards to all!
Pat :yawn:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2009, 02:00 AM

In joint venture with Turkey, Singapore Technologies Kinetics has developed the TERREX ICV. Singapore will field an initial 135 units to it's Infantry and Guards units during 2010. The TERREX is an 8x8 ICV (Infantry Carrier Vehicle) with a crew of 2 and can carry 12 passengers. Powered by a 400hp CAT C9 Diesel it's speed will be btwn. 110-115km/h. It will sport an independent hydro pneumatic suspension system. Mounted on the chassis it will feature a fully stabilized turret with a remote operated
30mm Bushmaster II. What sets the TERREX apart is that it has a new Acoustic Weapon Detection System (AWDS) on-board along with a Battlefield Management System (BMS). Pictures:
8998 8999
This is part of Singapore's major effort to modernize it's forces and keep pace with it's regional neighbors such as Indonesia that's doing the same and plans to purchase 420 TERREXs. The TERREX will replace Singapore's V-200 carrier (Will re-verify this.) and augment the purchase in 2005 of the BIONIX II and currently the improved BIONIX III and 2006 purchase from Germany of the LEOPARD IIA4. Pictures:
9001 9000
If Singapore isn't in SPMBT as was suggested in a thread elsewhere, maybe as the author suggested this can be rectified?
Good Night!
Pat

Anthony_Scott

October 22nd, 2009, 01:58 PM

Please see this thread about some Elbit closed hatch concepts, which will revolutionise how infantry fights from APCs:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44092

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 22nd, 2009, 09:48 PM

Anthony,
Thank you, I read the post. Just use the TERREX or to represent the MRAPs the
RG-35, they are both examples of the thinking going on around the world to more effectively protect crew and passengers while still increasing vehicle survivability at the same time sort of like "Having your cake and eating it to.". TERREX w/AWDS it hears it, tells FCS to shoot it and after BUSHMASTER II kills it the on-board BMS has already told the battlefield commander "in the rear with the gear" in real time what's happened and even watched if his country has a satelite or other visual source such as a UAV etc. Hi-Tech on the battlefield is certainly moving on! What Patton could've done if he had it!?! Also please note TERREX source info is the same as the previous FRES one.
Thanks!
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 21st, 2009, 01:46 AM

VBM Freccia 8x8 IFV. Developed by the Iveco-Oto Melara consortium, the Freccia is the first digitised vehicle to enter service with the Italian Army. Based on the Centauro 105mm tank destroyer chassis, the Freccia sports a longer and narrower hull capable of carrying a crew of 3 (1 Driver and 2 in the turret.) along with 8 soldiers. An order of 249 units has been placed with all to be fielded by 2013. Broken down as follows: 172 IFV's with the Oto Melara Hitfist Plus turret with a Oerlikon 25mm KBA cannon, pair of 7.62mm coaxial one main gun fitted the other roof mounted, pointing laser device and a thermal night camera. 36 ATGW units that will in addition to the above, carry 2 Rafael Spike long range anti-tank guided missiles. Others to include a mortar variant with a
Thales 2R2M, striped 120mm mortar with auto loader, hydraulic recoil cushioning system and auto handling and shooting management system. The Command variant to have an Oto Melara Hitrole 12.7mm turret with a full battlefield comms and electronics package. There will also be an Ambulance and Recovery variants.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 21st, 2009, 02:20 AM

VBM Freccia 8x8 IFV. Developed by the Iveco-Oto Melara consortium, the Freccia is the first digitised vehicle to enter service with the Italian Army. Based on the Centauro 105mm tank destroyer chassis, the Freccia sports a longer and narrower hull capable of carrying a crew of 3 (1 Driver and 2 in the turret.) along with 8 soldiers. An order of 249 units has been placed with all to be fielded by 2013. Broken down as follows: 172 IFV's with the Oto Melara Hitfist Plus turret with a Oerlikon 25mm KBA cannon, pair of 7.62mm coaxial one main gun fitted the other roof mounted, pointing laser device and a thermal night camera. 36 ATGW units that will in addition carry 2 Rafael Spike long range anti-tank guided missiles. Others to include 21 Mortar variant with a Thales 2R2M, striped 120mm mortar with auto loader, hydraulic recoil cushioning system and auto handling and shooting management system. 20 Command variants to have an Oto Melara Hitrole 12.7mm turret with a full battlefield comms and electronics package. There will also be an Ambulance and Recovery variants. First IFV delivered in Feb. 2009, at Cepolispe in Montelibretti, Rome. All weapon systems testing was successfully completed in June 2009. All have onboard fire suppression systems, NBC protected and front and underside armor to protect against up to 30mm rounds and 6kg TFT blasts with a package to withstand 8kg mine blasts. Will provide stats next time, didn't print out right-sorry! Source for info and photos: army-technology.com.
Photos:
9164 9165 9166

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 23rd, 2009, 02:43 AM

Hope everyone is doing well, just some quick updates.
1. VBM Freccia 8x8 additional stats as promised 26 tons powered by an Iveco diesel 6V super charged engine rated at 550hp, Spd. 110km/h and Rng. of 800km. Source army-tecnology.com.
2. At AUSA 2008 held in Wash. DC earlier this year, General Dynamics Armament&Technology Products (GD-ATP)unveiled the STRYKER with it's new hybrid armor kit (Designed by Rafeal.) that will be replacing the current SLAT armor kits being used now. Delivery is to be completed by March 2010 under the 150M contract awarded to GD-ATP. Note GD has been awarded the contract for the next gen STRYKER also will provide info and pictures later. Pictures follow, note second one shows a STRYKER with SLAT and Hybrid armor for wheel protection this is a "quick fix" until units are all retro-fitted. Source defence-update.com.
9176 9175

3. British MOD has decided to update the WARRIOR under the
FRES SV program (See earlier post). Will update later sources are both above.
4. South Korea to field new K21 APC. Source:
army-technology.com. Again will update later.
Thanks! And a Merry Christmas to all!!
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 4th, 2010, 02:49 PM

"CROSS" had already done a thread on this-thanks! Just providing additional info with a related story. British MOD will and has acquired 100 Bronco ATTC vehicles from ST Kinetics of Singapore in a contract worth 150m pounds that will, as reported be designated as WARTHOG by B-MOD. Contract to be completed by mid 2010. The WARTHOG is to replace the VIKINGS currently being used in Afghanistan purchased under an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR). Specs: Crew 2 with 10 troops, 65km/h roads and 5km/h in water, WARTHOG will in addition have a Platt MR50 shielded ring mount and external fuel tanks, powered by Caterpillar C7 generating 350bhp at 2400rpm.
9205 9206

France on the other hand has chosen to purchase from BAE 129
BvS10 MKII VIKINGs a heavier version of the BvS206s VIKING for it's Rapid Intervention Forces (RIV) at a cost of 220m pounds. France chose the VIKING MKII over the Bronco. Deliveries to begin in this year.
9207 9208

Imp

January 4th, 2010, 06:55 PM

Strange isnt it that it only took 60 years to create lightweight Schuzen as in SLAT armour, think the Ruskies tried springs with limited success

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 18th, 2010, 02:55 AM

Don,
These were cross referenced against the game and I don't see them. Not going to be as much as we might've thought except for procurement issues that'll fall within the deadline as discussed in the MRAP thread. Some I had where already in the game that are just now being reported on. Small issue with dates when fielded very minor and plus or minus 1yr. based on current year from my info. NONSTARTERS as far as I'm concerned. Here you go again these are fielded dates:
1. Indonesia/Pindad ANOA/2008/C3 P10/12.7mm/http://www.military-today.com/apc/anoa.htm
2. England/WARTHOG/2009/C2 P10/MR50 Mount 12.7mm/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warthog-all-terrain
3. South Korea/K-21 NIFV/2009/C3 P9/40mm, 2 ATGW/Anti Helo Launcher Sim. to IDF SPIKE and 7.62mm coax/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k21-fighting-vehicle/ and http://www.military-today.com/apc/nifv.htm
4. United States/STRYKER/2010/New Armor for all./http://defense-update.com/features/2009/may/stryker_reactive_270509.html
5. France/BvS10 MKII VIKING/2011/C2 P10/12.7mm or 7.62mm/http://defense-update.com/products/v/viking_231209.html
6. Netherlands/BOXER/2011/C3 P8/12.7mm/http://www.military-today.com/apc/boxer_mrav.htm
Pics:
9259 9260 9261

9263 9264
Good Night!
Pat

DRG

January 18th, 2010, 04:22 AM

This is excellent. Thanks Pat

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 25th, 2010, 02:54 AM

Don,
Only need to add Warrior SV that has just been approved recently under British MOD FRES program. Also added MBT items not found. Notes added as needed.
1. Norway/XA-203S/2007/C3 P7/12.7mm/http://www.military-today.com/apc/xa_203.htm
Other two countries have them in the game.

2. Taiwan/CM-32 YUNPAO IFV/C3 P6/20mm & RM 7.62mm/ http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2671.html and http://www.military-today.com/apc/cm32_yunpao.htm
These refs and others indicate the APC and IFV variants are already fielded. Game makes APC variant not available I believe until 2012. FSV/C3/105mm variant doesn't appear available at this time, will track progress.

MBTs:
1. Jordon/M-60 PHOENIX/2005/C4/SB120mm, 12.7mm & 7.62mm/
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m60_phoenix.htm, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ARCHIVE/2005/MAY/Pages/Jordan_Eyes3203.aspx?PF=1 and http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Military-and-naval-science/Jordan-moves-ahead-with-Al-Hussein-Hybrid-Turret-120-mm-smoothbore-troop-trial.html
The game shows Jordon with a "AL-RUKH" MBT which I couldn't find in a net search while doing my cross check and the game icon doesn't look the same as the picture below, that's why this is here.

2. Egypt/M-60 2000 120S/2009/C4/SB120mm, 12.7mm & 7.62mm/ http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/262218 (Bottom), http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm and http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010823_1_n.shtml
I wouldn't waste our time if I thought this MBT was a "mirage" but it's your call. I'm at 90% it's there, wish I could nail this down some more for you.

3. If time allows thought you would want a picture of the *BLACK EAGLE as it's listed with S. Korea to replace the artist concept drawing. Ref is for others as desired. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm

Pics:
9302 9303 9304

9305 9306

Have a Great Day EVERYONE!!,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 25th, 2010, 03:05 AM

All,
Just a couple of more pics for you:
9307 From a Korean source looks more like the 2000 120S but that's how it was labled.

9308

Everyone GOOD NIGHT!,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2010, 02:23 AM

Mobhack

January 26th, 2010, 03:18 AM

Don,
I'm going to hold off on the WARRIOR SV, it won't meet our window for ops. There seems however to be info to support that the British are using WARRIORs with TOWs (army-technology.com) on board as they equipped them for the Kuwaitis on their DESERT WARRIORs. Maybe you (or someone else?) have better sources then I on this matter to meet the outline of info you require as discussed. I didn't see any for the British in the game unless I missed it. Also it would appear that the "Korean source" picture is correct for the Jordain M-60 PHOENIX (Post #13) and the picture I provided (Post #12) must be of one with add on armor protection. Links will show upgrades and images (to support the above), all from the manufacturer for the PHOENIX.
http://www.kaddb.com/static/project2.shtm and http://www.kaddb.com/static/projects/m60/1.htm (3 Images)
My work is done here for now and will move onto the MRAPs which again should only be about five or six types. Hope to have them cross referenced and posted later this week before I leave for vacation to "the great white north". No response needed, I know you're in CRUNCH time.
Regards,
Pat

Desert Warrior was an export-only item for 1 customer.

UK does not believe in APC with integrated ATGM, or ATGM integral to the rifle platoon. ATGM should be in own-unit support formations separate from the rifle platoon which can manoeuvre separately as required.

FRES Scout may (eventually) be decided some time in the next 2 or 3 years, after squillions have been p**sed down the drain over decades. Front runner seems to be a CV-90 with the 40mm CTWS turret. Maybe the 35mm. Choosing the 35mm bushmaster would be saner since it is used by many armies and the ammo is widely available, hence reasonable cost. 40CTWS would leave the army with a unique weapon system and calibre which is not good.

FRES APC is still further down the line it seems. The entire FRES programme has been a colossal waste of time and money. Only the UK MOD (which outnumbers the troops) could mis-manage this so wonderfully.

Andy

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 27th, 2010, 04:16 AM

Andy,
Was unaware that ATGW units worked independently, I would prefer a little bit of security around my assets. Love how these parallel programs for the WARRIOR (or any other) as discussed in the link have converged to the point where the WARRIOR SV has probably won out in the FRES program in that category. And the modernization program to take the WARRIOR out to 2038, makes me wonder if they'll just stick to it under the FRES program altogether in the end. Imagine how much more it would've cost if they started from scratch with a new platform altogether? I think every major military does the same, we did it with the
Osprey amongst others. Anyway here's the article.
http://defense-update.com/features/2009/december/fres_sv_warrior_071209.html
Good Night and with Regards to ALL,
Pat

thatguy96

January 27th, 2010, 12:19 PM

Here's another article (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm) on the subject of the FRES/WFLIP programs.

DRG

February 6th, 2010, 05:47 PM

Don,
These were cross referenced against the game and I don't see them.

6. Netherlands/BOXER/2011/C3 P8/12.7mm/[B][url]

Unit 106 PWV APC

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 13th, 2010, 01:07 PM

Don,
Back with no broken bones and some great cheesecake form NYC. Sorry I missed that unit. Will keep an eye out for any late developments. The HAWKEI has advanced to the next stage and is on track for 2013, but I'd wait until next years patch, as 2010 will be critical for that and other programs to include British MOD FRES.
Hope all is well.
Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 13th, 2010, 05:39 PM

Pat. Save any further updates until after the next patch please. I'm a bit snowed under with work as it is

Thanks

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 14th, 2010, 03:48 AM

Don,
No problem. Look forward to the patch when it's available, I have a sense this will be one of the biggest to date. In the meantime the AI awaits my return as my Japanese forces fight the Russians and North Koreans.
Take Care and the best to you on the MANY hours still ahead of you and the others. Do not hesitate to ask if I can help in some way.
Regards,
Pat
We know the risks in advance, yet we still volunteer to go deeper and further then most. Never fearful, never afraid but always respectful of the ocean cold and deep. Many have given their all whether by war or folly of man, just ask those still on eternal patrol, revered, remembered and never forgotten.
- Me.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 15th, 2010, 03:19 PM

All,
BAE unveils their demonstrator at last weeks IAV show in London. This is BAE's entry in the British MOD FRES program on an CV-90 chassis with British turret. It's worth watching BAE's You Tube "commercial" to see the guns firing on target as the chassis does continous 360 turns. See earlier post on topic and tracking for 2010 as a decision is to be made later this year on the winner.
http://defense-update.com/features/2010/february/cv90_fres_sv_demonstrator_100210.html
Enjoy,
Pat

Imp

February 15th, 2010, 07:39 PM

Another nice find the only problem I see with that gun is if we end up as the only user that said if your going to mount one it wants to be capable of taking out taxis etc & they are becoming tougher, more potent HE etc as well as larger. Does nicely get round the issue of bigger gun less ammo loadout, if the tech transfers 140mm tank guns might just make an appearance at some point though how long are the barrels going to be if that happens?

February 15th, 2010, 09:59 PM

Fastboat,
Impressive find. How do you always find such great info on military vehicle development? This looks like a good replacement for the Bradley. We will see how many countries embrace it besides the UK.....

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 16th, 2010, 10:04 PM

IMP just for you:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm
Note it's designed for a 135mm - 152mm main gun though I can't remember how it's armed in the game for S. Korea. You can plainly see that's no 120mm gun pictured. Also a couple of articles have indicated that the Case Enclosed 40mm for the FRES and Warrior SV programs are here to stay. With the round being
3x more powerful then the current 30mm round why not? And I believe the round also is "self sharpening" in flight as well as I believe the 30mm round used by S. Korea is as well on their new K2 IFV, though I'm going by memory here (Might be Singapores TERREX Bushmaster II round.)
EJ: As I mentioned elsewhere, It took me a year to post again after following my primary five sources for that period of time to track and verify their info against each other and still other sources in my areas of interest. Bottom line I take my research seriously to be as accurate as possible and not waste each others time. Treat yours like a reporter trust the good ones and forget the rest. And thanks!
Pat

Imp

February 17th, 2010, 05:45 AM

Cheers Pat is great for us a easy quick look at whats coming up.

With the round being 3x more powerful then the current 30mm round why not? And I believe the round also is "self sharpening" in flight

Whoa I had seen stuff saying it was more powerful did not realise just how much thats a huge jump,serious ammo tech going on there thats a leap like Chobham. You would think export sales is a big possibility which stops you being the only people fielding it.
If it can be transfered to tank main guns no need to go bigger you just powered up.

DRG

February 17th, 2010, 09:59 AM

My my but that "black Eagle" certainly has long legs. Did you note the information that the companys been bankrupt since 2002 ?? It was one of the first "what if's" we put in and it's now been removed from every OOB that had it and a good reason why we don't add things like this any longer.

Don

Imp

February 20th, 2010, 08:01 AM

Due to your posts stopped looking at APCs etc but protection seems to have come a long way certainly on current crop of IFVs.
There was the story of the warrior driver that extracted a squad with wounded I think & took over half a dozen RPG hits doing it. Current testing policy seems to be fire 2 RPG7s at it to prove armours ability to take multiple hits. Okay its an old RPG but someting has happened here I would call that good protection.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 20th, 2010, 12:58 PM

IMP and others,
You then might find this article interesting as an example of where we're heading:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tarps_291009.html
Survivability is turned into a big market area and I think this is why we're not seeing much in advancement of new models in MBTs, it's cheaper to tech up, gun up and increase protection on existing equipment. This is allowing for instance British MOD to plan for a service life increase of the WARRIOR until 2030. The M-60 with the packages available as I've posted for consideration for Don already, are looking at service life extensions of 15 to 20 more years. All this tech allows everyone to stay in the game longer especially during these economic times.
Pat

Imp

February 20th, 2010, 03:43 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 26th, 2010, 03:48 AM

Lesson learned, identify your best sources and use and stick to them first. Recently a request for info was put out there and I used what I consider a "secondary" source of the ones I use for the sake of expediency over my two best ones. Will not happen again (I hope!), stay true to what you know. Reviewed
http://www.army-technology.com/ and everything was there for most of what was submitted by me. I feel like Mr. Toyoda. Not looking for any bridges (OR ANYTHING ELSE.) unless you want to buy one, just needed to vent. Besides the AI has changed it's tactics and I've some thinking to do to pull this out and avoid a draw! Working to retake the Kuriles! That source might help as "checker". Can you "copy" (normally "cut") from the net and then paste it here?
Good Night!
Regards,
Pat

Marcello

February 27th, 2010, 09:59 AM

Well thats a novel idea got to hit it with machine guns just a fraction before fire the RPG tricky, should send warhead designers off for a rethink.
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.

IIRC the chinese have something similar in operational service: a phalanx/goalkeeper style gun mounted on a truck with the associated systems. It is however meant to provide a last layer of defense against PGMs for high value targets (an important bridge or whatever), which is probably the only cost effective use for such a weapon most of the time. By cost I don't mean just the financial cost but all the associated issues that come with it. All that DU/tungsten etc you are putting in the air is going to come down somewhere and you don't want to have anyone there when that happens, not to mention making sure that one of the damn things doesn't lock on the helicopter of the general who's coming for an inspection...
Building mortar proof bunkers isn't that problematic, penetration against hardened targets is low.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 28th, 2010, 01:30 AM

Don't want to stray too far off the ranch here but, I have heard someone else was involved and or interested in the CTCA 40mm to be used in the British MOD WARRIOR SV and FRES programs. With that said I'll simply leave you with "viva le France!" and this article:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1612.html

Good Night!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 19th, 2010, 01:19 AM

Was just going through my main sources to see if there was any news for "my" threads when I came across this update
(see Post #1 for background.), my feeling is that BAE is going to win this contract with the British MOD under the FRES program. The modified CV9035 MKIII has just proven it can easily handle the additional 15 tons put on it from added protection and the new turret with the CTWS 40mm. It's been awful quite from General Dynamics concerning their modified ASCOD (Which will carry the same turret.). But you decide:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1628.html
Pic from article:
9681

JohnAbrams21

March 19th, 2010, 03:54 PM

I believe that General Dynamics has won the "scout" portion of the FRES contract with the ASCOD II.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4538157&c=EUR&s=TOP

Report: General Dynamics Wins U.K. Scout Contract
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 13 Mar 2010 14:51
Print Print | Print Email

LONDON - American firm General Dynamics is the winner over BAE Systems in the race to build a new generation of armored reconnaissance vehicles for the British Army, The Financial Times reported March 13.
A March 13 report said that General Dynamics has been selected to build 750 next-generation armored reconnaissance vehicles for the British Army. Above, an image of the proposed vehicle. (COURTESY OF GENERAL DYNAMICS UK)

The contract for scout variant of the British Army's Future Rapid Effects System vehicles is worth more than 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion, 1.1 billion euros), the newspaper said.
Related Topics

British defence equipment minister Quentin Davies will name General Dynamics as the preferred bidder in the deal to build an initial 750 vehicles, The Financial Times said.

General Dynamics' ASCOD 2 was in a head-to-head fight with BAE Systems' CV-90 MkIII.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 20th, 2010, 03:07 AM

JohnAbrams21,
Seems as though we have a little controversy here!?! Yours was dated the 13th, mine the 18th this will require some digging into!! Thank you for the response! And I really liked the CV90 too!
Regards,
Pat
P.S.
Imp any insights from across the pond!!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 20th, 2010, 03:48 AM

London Times reports the following on the 16th, could be a "leak":
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article7063234.ece
Regards,
Pat
P.S.
God help me, my wife will kill me if I can't get up in 4hrs. to drive to Macon, GA. for the annual Cherry Blossom Fest. with the family in caravan. Can anyone offer asylum out there?!?
GOOD NIGHT and have a GREAT WEEKEND!!!
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 22nd, 2010, 09:20 PM

Well it's official as of today, British MOD has awarded the
FRES SV portion of the program to General Dynamics. Theirs was the SV using the ASCOD-2 as the platform (The turret contract was already awarded w/the 40mm case mounted gun.) The rest of the FRES program could be in jeopardy to budget issues. Again see post #1. Article as reported from London Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article7071312.ece
Related article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7071924.ece

Regards,
Pat

Imp

March 23rd, 2010, 05:18 PM

Imp any insights from across the pond!!

Sorry Pat been a bit hectic of recent just noticed this, glad to see you survived the Cherry Blossom incident & are still reporting.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 24th, 2010, 01:23 AM

John,
Thanks for the concern, we had a great weekend, and no asylum was needed! Figured you were tied up. Was going to post the news from the Telegraph as well but deleted the post by accident. Seems this decision has upset many in regards to England maintaining it's own tank making capacity and a lot of online info to suggest many in the Army preferred the CV-9035 MKIII over the ASCOD-2. Politics "ain't" it wonderful!?!
Here's some pics of the winner:
9714 9715

Regards,
Pat

Imp

March 24th, 2010, 03:24 PM

Hmm

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 24th, 2010, 11:04 PM

Just got home from work, checked in on the forum, when that nagging voice had me recheck my last post #40. Well my apologies too everyone, I got my photo info reversed, the model shows the original turret, the photo is actually the improved "protected" turret. Notice the difference at the point where the gun is mounted. Sorry for any inconvenience!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 2nd, 2010, 12:23 PM

BAE turns over last of the BvS10 MKII Vikings to British MOD.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1640.html
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 3rd, 2010, 01:34 AM

WARTHOGs arrive in UK for AFGAN fitout.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1496.html
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 22nd, 2010, 01:36 AM

I've been waiting for someone to pick up this vehicle from FNSS Turkey and can now report that Malaysia will be purchasing 257 units made in 12 different variants to include a two man turreted IFV. As far as I can determine Turkish forces still have not picked up on this vehicle. It is fully amphibous out of the box but can be fitted with hydro-jets to increase speed. Can be fitted out with various weapons from 12.7mm, ATGW to AA. Most notably it seems it turned out to be very capable in desert ops as well. Remember I only use actual or expected fielded dates in all my posts as a general reminder:).
Malaysia/PARS/2012?/C2 P12/Main IFV w/2M Turret UKN CalWep
Source:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/pars.htm and
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/april/malaysian_8x8_deftech_21042010.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82888.html About Malay purchase.
Pics:
9969 9970 9971
Good Night!
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 21st, 2010, 12:36 PM

This is just one improvement of one of the most widely used and longest lasting APC's in the world.
Australia/M113AS4/2007/C2 P~10/12.7mm 1.2KRDs/
Info:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm
Pics:
10124 10125
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 24th, 2010, 10:51 PM

It's time to start tracking the USAs Ground Combat Vehicle (GVC) program. The GVC will be the first combat vehicle designed from the ground up to fight in an IED environment. Reportedly it'll offer a higher level of protection then is currently available with current MRAPs. The players are in place for the competition. We'll see and you decide.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15444/ and
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15445/
Pic as labeled NOT the GVC:
10138
This will be an interim fix until the GVC gets fielded, which might also replace the BRADLEY.
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 26th, 2010, 12:57 PM

In my world of "hunt and peck" thank you all for not beating me up on my last post where I had "GVC" vice "GCV". The third team headed by SAIC is now identified as follows:
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15500/
Note related links at bottom of article that are worth a look.
Next ties in the three teams to the GCV program:
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/580/
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 3rd, 2010, 01:11 AM

Missed this, so with my apologies I correct myself that in post #47 the picture of the modified BRADLEY is BAEs entry in the GCV competition as the PUMA will be SIACs entry. As a reminder though they will look familiar they will be adapted to the "IED World" of combat we're in now, and will replace the BRADLEY over time. They will also be up-gunned (Up to 40mm), up-armored and up-sensored.
Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

June 3rd, 2010, 02:16 PM

Side note for future reference (say for "what if" mods/OOBs).
The 30mm Bushmaster intended to be mounted on the new USMC EFV is designed to be able to upgrade to 50mm.
Just a FYI.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 4th, 2010, 03:48 AM

You probably won't need any what ifs, as this article from DOD reports the CORPS is essentially updating all the current EFV prototypes to improved designs, increased reliability, fire control systems and weapons etc. based on lessons learned to date.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15615/
Good Night and have a Great Weekend all!!
Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

June 8th, 2010, 02:29 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 16th, 2010, 01:19 AM

Just a handful of "bullets" out here from sources I trust without "overloading the system" (That's me.) with additional sources for now.
1. BAE & IVECO to submit the following for the USMC MPC Program. The MPC Program will fill the CORPS requirement for a medium class vehicle that'll essentionally fit in between the EFV and JLTV Programs currently going through revision and or evaluation.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1794.html

2. Otokar of Turkey launches new AV 6x6 ARMA.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1792.html

3. Ukrine to suply Iraq with 420 BTR-4 APC of all types after some bugs are worked out.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1775.html

4. And finally for you weapons guys a new (I think impressive...)record set in the 40mm weapons world by Metal Storm.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1793.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 2nd, 2010, 02:24 PM

General info "cheat" article as already posted on the MRAP and MBT threads.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature90405/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 2nd, 2010, 02:45 PM

This is another recognition guide as taught by the USA. This one dealing with NATO APC's. Again this should be of some value like the one I posted to the MBT thread to developers etc. it's very through.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0535/ch2.htm

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 6th, 2010, 02:29 AM

As promised in my last white paper post, some of you might remember I came across some info that lead me to throw out that the French were in "cahoots" with the British MOD in the broader use of the CTWS 40mm when I was posting on the FRES program.
1. I give you the SPHINX from Panard a long time leader in armored recon and scout vehicles.
http://defense-update.com/products/s/sphinx_08072010.html

Pic: 10311

2. Background on the French SCORPION Modernization Program that Panards SPHINX is in competition for in one segment of.
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100708_scoprion.html

3. For you German and Dutch BOXER fans the long awaited IFV turret was finally unveiled also @ EUROSATORY 2010 (End of June first half of July.) it will mount the MK44 Bushmaster 30mm AC (Auto Cannon.)
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100702_the-boxer-family-is-expanding.html

Pic: 10312

Also of interest some you might remember in one of my first posts on the "SPA SPAA" thread the Swedish SKYRANGER. I came across a picture of a BOXER with the SKYRANGER turret on it, though I believe it's still in development/evaluation stage with Germany and Sweden (Using the PIRANA IV APC.).

Pic: 10313

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 14th, 2010, 02:09 AM

Mobhack

September 14th, 2010, 06:22 AM

I'm now satisfied as far as the MERKAVA is concerned the amount of troops carried is dependent on the number of rounds stowed in the rear compartment please note the last para of this good source I believe one other was bold enough to state this as well. Seems if you want 8 troops you carry one in the breech and 10 in "revolver" as I posted on the MBT thread earlier. It seems we have "one foot in the box and one out of the box" now. Give me my Sniper (Or team.) and a full load of ammo. I'm convinced from a lay mans (Software code.) point of view anything more would be a headache. Comment made here because after all the article is about an APC and increased engine performance might translate to game performance as this is a "fleet" wide upgrade (Or not.).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Diesel-Upgrade-for-Israels-Achzarit-Heavy-IFVs-06399/

Pic:
10471

Regards,
Pat

It is a total and utter pain to do from any POV.

Tanks don't have protected carry, APCs do. Simply giving the merkavas a 2 carry would have the guys shot off the back decks as tank riders (which is what all tank carry is).

Thus if the merkava is given protected carry, it has to be an APC class.

So - it is then either removed from the MBT category, or a complete set of merkava (APC) duplicates need to be provided for the player (filling up OOB slots and needing synchronisation if any change is done to the base template model).

If it is removed from the MBT category, then the things have to be put into separate formations, and the AI pick list completely rewritten, even supposing that it has enough room to do so (there may be e.g. reserve tank formations already there).

Whether all that sheer kerfuffle is really necessary so that one or 2 guys who just think it may be a nice to have on occasion the facility to carry 2 scouts 'protected' can be satisfied is really a moot point.

So - if I put this in then I think it will have to be the duplicate "Merkava APC" with 6 carry as an APC class, in a new platoon in MISC, to allow carry of Sayeret scouts and with the main gun ammo load suitably reduced to 12 or so main gun rounds to accommodate it. For human player use only in special circumstances, and in reality probably not worth the bother (I would always pay the extra points for a proper heavy APC platoon as a companion to the tank platoon, as I prefer the tanks to have all the main gun ammo they can eat, and the ability for the infantry to deploy tactically slightly separately from the MBT as required. The MGs on the HAPC are a not negligible bonus, too).

Andy

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 14th, 2010, 11:18 AM

I know Kevin (And others to include myself.) would be disappointed, but I'd rather see the issues of an up armored, new 120mm, LAHAT and TROPHY with the MERKAVA IV being addressed as was displayed at EUROSTATY 2010 and is in production now to include back-fitting all fielded MERK IV tanks as they now come into the maintenance depots. A tank is a tank and I say this to agree, OOB slots for some countries are getting tight. I'd rather have the improved up gunned NAMER too support my MERKs as they can keep up or are even faster. I was for this but the clock is running on the game as are slots, I fear with some countries it's really coming down to picking and choosing the "best bang for the buck". I'd rather have space for the new equipment and or major improvements to existing as discussed above as an example or quickly the ARJUN MKII as another.

Regards,
Pat

kevineduguay1

September 16th, 2010, 03:28 PM

The Merkava can be classed as a "Gun APC (Tracked)" Class # 127. They can stay in the armor recruitment area as they are armor.
Making some that carry 2 men and some that carry 4 men and even some that carry a full load of 8 men is not a problem with the Israeli OOB. There are 415 Unit slots open and no less than 780 Formation slots open. Fitting them into the OOB is not a problem, the will to do so is.

A weapons system should be portrayed with as many of its capabilities as can be simulated in the game. It should be up to the player how to use those capabilities.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 29th, 2010, 12:13 AM

The future of the CORPS is at stake as a decision is expected sometime in the next week on the EFV.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/659/
Pic:
10522

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 30th, 2010, 01:29 PM

Last patch post, APC section for 6.0. Still no word on the EFV program. Again pictures are on the patch post sorry is there a way to transfer them from one post to another?
APC Development...
A1. MALAYSIA/MCV PARS/JUN 2012/C4 P7/DENAL EMAK 30mm Cam Gun
210(65 ready.) Rds & MG4 Coax 7.62mm 1.6KRds (800 ready.)/Though the PARS are manufactured in Turkey (DENAL is S. African.) Malaysia will be the first country to purchase them after what was a long and grueling competition between it and the Swiss PARANHA IIIC and the Polish ROSOMAK. It is fully amphibious and Malaysia has fully equipped and protected these vehicles leaving out no optional equipment etc. such the FC targeting "AUTO TRACKING" as is available by the DENAL source. Turkey and the UAE are still evaluating the PARS. I will address a couple of variations.
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/pr...ll_description.
html Primary as it covers all aspects of the vehicle.
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/pr...scription.html
Pics:

A2. MALAYSIA/APC PARS/JUN 2012/C2 P12/RO 12.7mm 2K Rds or RO 40mm AGL 40 Rds /Malaysia has ordered 275 units in 12 variations. Would add both APC types; ammo load based on similar APC weapon types.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2711.html Note contract info lower left of page.
See Page 5 Post #45.
Pics:

D1. Delete: MALAYSIA/PIRANHA III/UNIT 030/As noted above it lost along with the ROSOMAK per refs and posts above to the PARS.

The following share the same refs., with some having specific additional refs as added. Turrets single manned unless noted differently. All purchased from FNSS of Turkey. Modified in armor to some extent (10% gratis?) over Turkeys units to meet Malaysia’s needs. What's not at issue is the number of additional smoke and 76mm grenade launchers added as the pictures for all show as compared to their Turkish counterparts. Also will provide Turkish counterpart unit numbers as they might apply for further info concerning ammo loads etc. A little "SWAG" on dates (Within a year except for ADNAN SP 120mm.) to group these together and to allow for earlier and follow on order deliveries.

A3. MALAYSIA/ADNAN 50 APC (Added 50 to avoid confusion w/A4)/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted 12.7mm 2K Rds./
Pic:

A4. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AGL APC/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted SAGO AGL 40 Rds./
Pic:

A5. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AIFV/JAN 2003/C2 P11/SHARPSHOOTER Turreted BUSHMASTER MKII M242 25mm UKN Rds w/COAX 7.62mm UKN Rds./Turkish
ZMA AIFV UNIT 176.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/d...uruning24.html About the SHARPSHOOTER Turret w/specs, this info might cause review of Turkish UNIT 176 capabilities and manning?
Pic:

A6. MALAYSIA/ADNAN ATGW/JAN 2003/C3/BAKTAR SHIKAN MSL System 8-12 Missiles & 7.62mm UKN Rds./ This is a Pakistani system very similar to the Chinese RED ARROW 8 system in capabilities..
Pic:

Not entered under SP/SPAA section to keep same named units together.
A7. MALAYSIA/ADNAN SP 81mm/JAN 2003/C5/81mm 114 Rds & 12.7mm 2K Rds./Turkish ZHA AMV-81 UNIT 073.
Pic:

A8. MALAYSIA/ADNAN SP 120mm/JUN 2010/C5/120mm 80 Rds & 12.7mm 2K Rds./Turkish ZHA 120mm UNIT 076. If the Turkish ZHA AMV-81has a C5 shouldn't the ZHA 120mm manning be the same and not at the current C4? It is important to note that the ADNAN SP 120mm is mounted on the AVC-S (Stretched M113A3.) that's why I used 80Rds vice 68 - 74Rds. as on some others.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/d...uruning21.html
Pic:

C1. Change: MALAYSIA/UNITS 042 & 232./KIFV to MIFV/The KIFV is the South Korean version.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1416.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/
http://www.fnss.com.tr/v1.6/index.php?conmenu=56
http://kbmyaf.byethost18.com/TDM_Equip.htm A little dated from 2009 but a good general over view w/great pictures.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/contracts.php Go to Select customer drop down window.

C2. Change: UK/UNIT 602/JAN 2015/ADD P7 (Carry)/FRES CVR(T) to FRES-SV/The FRES program required the ability to carry troops into combat. All other aspects of the FRES Program are on hold General Dynamics (See the GD UK site.) was to still compete for the other variants if and when bids are reopened. The only part of the program approved was for the utility vehicles (FRES-U) but was later revoked by MOD to pursue FRES-SV. The units to be deleted (As mentioned.) fell victim to a restart of the program such as has occurred with the U.S. GVC (See posts #47 & #48.) which was supposed to be reopened under tighter budget requirements and focused developmental restraints this month, however all has been quiet on that front here as well so far.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...s-01130/#other Program was revoked to focus on FRES-SV.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/unite...ations_uk.html Shows C3/P7.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/articl...p?forumID=1593 Again mentions carry ability.

Posts: Page 1: #1 & Page 4: #33 & #38.
Pics:

D2. DELETE: UK/UNITS 275, 329, 414 & 423/These are the FRES-U series vehicles that initial contracts were awarded for then revoked by BMOD to pursue FRES-SV per refs and posts.

A9. IRAQ/BTR-4/JAN 2011/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/30mm 360 Rds, 30mm AGL 150 Rds, 7.62mm 1200 Rds & Either KONKURS or BARRIER (BARYER) ATGW 4 missiles./ Iraq started to get these delivered in Oct 2010, training was started in Ukraine in SEP 2010. Allowing for the fielding of trained units w/ JAN 2011 date. Also Iraq only to get the combat GROM weapons module configuration (Utility versions ordered as well.).
POST: Page 6: #53. Associated ("the rabbit hole" thing again.) linkage to this:

A10. UKRAINE/BTR-4 GROM/JAN 2010/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/30mm 360 Rds, 30mm AGL 150 Rds, 7.62mm 1200 Rds & Either KONKURS or BARRIER (BARYER) ATGW 4 missiles./

A11. UKRAINE/BTR-4 BAU/JAN 2010/C3 P8/Integrated PARUS RO turret w/Twin 23mm 400 Rds & 7.62mm 2K Rds/
Has the BAU weapons module. As these are for export did not include the SHKVAL weapons module for Ukraine decided to go "heavy" and "light". SHKVAL is the same as the same as the GROM -2 missiles and +800 Rds of 7.62mm. To allow for the heavier armored version; change to P7 for carry.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...10-0708-06501/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...0-09-10-06608/ Update shows GROM configuration and others.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_4.htm I know it says sometime in 2009, but I'm more comfortable w/JAN 2010. If you want to change it no sooner then
JUN 2009.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/ukrai...s_technic.html NOTE: Unless I misread the bottom of the "Protection" section GROM is already better protected up to 30mm rounds out of the gate before up armoring it with no lose to carry.
Pics:

Alright I'm taking a break here to enjoy the rest of my last day off with CINCLANTHOME. Status for APC... left to do BOXER IFV status, ARMA 6x6 status, NAMER Iron Fist Mod and BRADLEY ERA Armor Mod. Then onto MRAPs and the rest. Will delete refs once I know they've posted safely form "My Favorites", also to avoid the timeout issues as this has been posted on use WordPad or Notebook (This came the support folks @ Shrapnel Games THANKS!!), I highlight my points, print it, when done copy to thread post highlight off printed version (Highlighting doesn't transfer.).

Regards,
Pat

Imp

December 1st, 2010, 10:52 AM

You have been a busy boy I bet Don loves you :)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2010, 12:11 PM

Good Morning everyone, made a Boo Boo here's the fix as already posted to the Patch Thread.

Don,
No reply needed, however, wanted to fix this before you got to it too prevent any rework. Left out Coax 7.62mm on ADNAN 50 and 12.7mm on ADNAN AGL plus changed manning due to the SACO 40mm turret.
A3. MALAYSIA/ADNAN 50 APC (Added 50 to avoid confusion w/A4)/JAN 2003/C2 P11/Turreted 12.7mm 2K Rds & Coax 7.62mm UKN Rds./
A4. MALAYSIA/ADNAN AGL APC/JAN 2003/C3 P9/Turreted SACO MK19 Mod 3 AGL 40 Rds & Coax 12.7mm UKN Rds./
You can in Post #31 in the picture see the MG on the right side of the turret looking at pic for ADNAN AGL. Sorry for the omission again just wanted to prevent rework. I'm done here (Regarding the last submission.) except for Q&A as needed.
SNAFU! God Bless Me!?! Darn Cold!!
THANKS!

John,
Don't know if that's how Don feels that way right now, but I'm willing to bet, with the efforts of everyone else, this will be the largest patch to date, just a feeling. I found a U.S. unit
(2 same type, different variation.) I would like to see deleted above what I already have. I have to check every "current" country to see if they show up elsewhere, again for deletion. Exempt will be Africa, can you guess what they call us? Just trying to clear more slots.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

December 1st, 2010, 12:28 PM

I am interested in these deletions

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 2nd, 2010, 03:34 AM

Mobhack

December 2nd, 2010, 08:31 AM

Don,
DELETE/USA/Mercenary Group/UNITS 725 & 726/ They have to go! Maybe being a little sensitive here :rolleyes: but, thinking back on my understanding of history in the modern era the peak interaction of mercenaries per say was in the period of the late 40's - early mid 80's focused in Africa, SE Asia (Malaysia comes to mind.) and parts of South and Central America. Most came from Germany(s), UK, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.S. after the war. The two most notable leaders came from the UK and France if I recall correctly and had the books "The Wild Geese" and "The Dogs of War" (Later movies; Wild Geese with the late great Richard Burton in it.) based on their exploits in Africa (Congo). Point being why is the U.S. the only country after using MobHack to have them from the samples looked at above? And in checking some of the African countries they have none in them where I would expect to see them as most of the mercenary actions took place there and in some respects today more, for security and training might still to a much lesser extent still be there today and again C. & S. America for the drug cartels (As a matter of conjecture for these if not material for action/adventure movies.)? Bottom line I accidentally stumbled upon them when I first started using MobHack a couple of weeks ago and saw it as an opportunity to clear some slots here and there from other European countries as well. All these years playing and I never noticed them there before. And I"m assuming when in MobHack and your looking at a country you're seeing all units from the start of WinSPMBT until the end unlike the Encyclopedia which looks at a certain time frame within the game.

Regards,
Pat

deleting these would save 2 slots - which is useful, given the squeeze on the USA OOb.

They were probably added in as "contractors" or somesuch. But that sort of thing could be done in the scenario editor, as they are most likely to be "scenario only" interest. (I have much the same opinion about other tertiary stuff, like (say) the military police. Again - if a scenario designer needed such, they could edit a regular infantry element. Players are rather unlikely to want them, methinks :)!).

If necessary - the level bomber population could be pruned (who really uses these in regular battles - and there are 20 slots used of these) - to just a representative item per era (B52 with 750lb bombs would cover it IMHO 195X-202X). The COIN Bombers (6 slots used) could go completely - just a relabelled bomber class, and only used by the human player or a scenario designer (perhaps) for an initial bombardment.

Cheers
Andy

DRG

December 2nd, 2010, 09:37 AM

Mercs already have a home in the Red and Green OOB's so they don't need one in the US OOB. However, IF there is a legitimate reason for deleting a unit I will do so but we don't have a line up of new units to go in that don't have a slot available so I don't need to start culling units like level bombers "just because" as long as we all stay away from the temptation to add the pentagons latest "kewl weapon" that just came off the drawing board and *might* make it to troop trials....maybe sometime, maybe not sometime.

I am more than a little tired of adding things then taking them out then putting them back in then adjusting the dates they are available. The M25 is a good example. This next release will be the third time their introduction dates have been changed and at least this time they were not intertwined with two other weapons systems that never made it past trials.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 2nd, 2010, 12:42 PM

A couple of helos I'm looking to add on my next list are coming on line within the next two years are just such an area to economize I feel without getting into an anti-air, personnel and tank specialty variations within those categories. As an example one carries (2) Sidewinders, (2) 19 shot 76mm rocket pods, (8) TOW msls. and of course it's AP/HE firing cannon, do we need more then that? I understand the need to modify when significant new weapons come along such as the new HELLFIRE II which I've reported on already is testing on track. I wonder if this might not be a legitimate area for cutting slots for 6.0+
(2012) beyond types that have new/improved weapons. As a player give me the one that has "all the bang for the buck" if you want more buy ammo for resupply (That's how I keep mine fighting.), anti-air, arty, tanks and or ATGW units, that's why they're in the game! My general feeling as player again is we need to sacrifice (economize) a little to get the new units in the game. Slots represent money, look at what your country is doing now in the area of defence it's no different right now in WinSPMBT, I would respectfully submit to every one now. I hear my own words and will get back on topic.
Thank you for your time here.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

December 3rd, 2010, 02:43 PM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2010, 03:14 AM

Well Done! Unfortunately I have no prize to give you but, then you are about the CORPS! I have so many numbers running through my head but of the 185 or 245 HELOS that will make up the USMC AH-1Z most will come from existing AH-1W helos converted over which of course will end that series. It's on my work list as these are just about to come on line and have only been certified operational last month upon completing op evals. There are of course new airframes as well being built; project to be completed by 2021. And you know I always have my documentation ready. And again I say what more fire power is needed for troop support? As a side note (And to stay somewhat on topic.) the EFV seems to be in major trouble, I'm following this closely, they've already probably lost the F-35C, but I know where along with India they can buy more Harriers next year that have just been fully upgraded within the last year. All I'll say is "May God Save the Queen!" also on my work list; it's just dam... I of course mean a darn shame.
Again well done!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2010, 04:11 AM

All,
Sorry should be USMC F-35B, had it confused with the F-35C USN carrier version.

Regards,
Pat

gila

December 4th, 2010, 04:49 AM

You have been a busy boy I bet Don loves you :)

Or drive him to insanity;)

DRG

December 4th, 2010, 10:53 AM

[Availability - USMC AH-1's currently being upgraded to the zulu configuration.

OK. so when did or will the first of the conversion start to be available ?

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2010, 01:14 PM

Don,
AH-1W were fielded in 1985 and is currently the only one being fully flown at this time by the CORPS. AH-1Z will be fielded by (Will recheck my other sources if sooner.) July 2011. I'll give a ref here, more refs will be on my list I'm working on very slowly while I'm taking a break.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20163/
Going to put further responses on the "HELO game related" thread, otherwise will wait until my work on patch list page 3 is ready and requested for.
Have think about lunch and get ready for work.
"The only limiting factor to what a man can accomplish is limited to how he uses his mind" - Me.
Regards,
Pat

DRG

December 4th, 2010, 09:09 PM

Well.... I've seen sources that claim they began operational evaluation testing in 2006 and it was declared combat-ready in September 2010

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 12th, 2010, 03:04 AM

1. Don't know if it'll make my list for this year or not but ARMA went from it's debut in June (EUROSTATY 2010) to being sold to it's first customer this past week and it wasn't Turkey, the country is thus far unidentified...but not for long.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/turkey_turkish_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicles_uk/arma_otokar_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_dat a_sheet_specifications_description_information_uk. html

Also see PG.6 Post #53.
Pic:
10701

2. FRES-SV update, LM of UK is officially awarded the contract to start production of the FRES-SV turret by GD of UK.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20228/

3. The new PUMA IFV will probably become one of the best IFV's in the world once it goes into full production but for now we have two of them.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20331/

4. Though there's a good chance this will be fielded possibly in the first half of 2011, it'll probably be on my list for the 2012 patch as a mod or add to the STRYKER IFV. The CROWS II system has successfully integrated the station to carry and now launch the JAVILIN ATGW.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20343/

5. GCV as I reported on earlier was reopened to bids this past week. One of the key elements changed is that the requirement for a tracked vehicle has been dropped. Competitors can now submit either as long as it meets all other requirements.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news103598.html

Regards,
Pat

DRG

December 12th, 2010, 11:37 AM

Also see PG.6 Post #53.

Regards,
Pat

Pat, please don't make us guess what "PG.6 Post #53" is or where it is.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 12th, 2010, 01:57 PM

You're right, normally would've indicated "in this thread" of course concerning ARMA as referenced to the topic. Long night @ work and busy.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2010, 02:37 AM

Swedish national court has finally declared that it's defence forces can proceed with it's long delayed purchase of the Patria AMV. This will make Sweden the third country to use the AMV besides Finland and Poland. I guess I'll be busy again as production had already started on units.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20707/

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

December 23rd, 2010, 09:53 PM

Here's what I've got at the moment :

"Oct 21, 2010

To date, Bell is on contract to deliver 70 Yankees and 28 Zulus; 31 UH-1Y and 11 AH-1Zs have been delivered. Two of each type were used for developmental testing and will be retained as test assets.

Full-rate production began on the Yankee last year.

The Zulu has been cleared to use all Hellfire missile variants, 2.75-in. rockets, the 20-mm. gun and AIM-9 anti-aircraft missile series."

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 6th, 2011, 03:56 AM

Poland to update ROSOMAK (PATRIA AMV) with new recon sensor gear by the end of this year.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20101220_recce-rosomak.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2011, 03:23 AM

Marcello

January 7th, 2011, 04:07 PM

U.S. SECDEF Gates kills the EFV. I'm not adding it as a "deletion" to my last patch input yet. Gates also wants to kill the F-35 program as well to meet the goal of cutting the U.S. defense budget by 80 to 100 billion dollars between 2012 - 2016. The F-35 cut issue is meeting with resistance to Gates from the new congress. So congress might step into the fray to save the EFV as well. Only time will tell but as with real life vs game life one thing is certain for now, both will still be around after the next patch unless something drastic happens in real life.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21003/
Regards,
Pat

The F-35 cannot be completely killed, simply because it is the only way to give 5th generation fighter capabilities to the USN and several US allies, as well as replacing several aging USAF platforms. Maybe the vertical take off variant will be deleted and numbers trimmed somewhat but overall it is simply "too big to fail" at this point. Compared to that the EFV looks like a mere overpriced nice to have, although of course one would have to consider the background, such as which districts are going to benefit from it, how much lobbying power can be brought to bear in its favor etc.
However budgetary realities being what they are, something will give in at some point...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 8th, 2011, 01:27 AM

Some were surprised by Gen. Amos being made Commandant of the CORPS for his support of the EFV as SECDEF Gates has been against it for some time now, but I have read all I need to now put the EFV on my delete list for the next patch now as well. SLAMRAM will be on the list as well though I noted no mention of MEADS. Some might find it interesting to see the direction the SECDEF and USAF want to take outside the F-35 program. There have been rumors for some time that the B-1B and B-2 would not be the end of strategic bomber development for us, it appears it's going to happen sooner then later now as well. Please read and enjoy the breakdown of the U.S. Defence spending overhaul over the next five years. Again note from this ref the source is located in the upper right corner to the article.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/726/?SID=24ede0b1fd75b16e725f3882e1791d50
Also a well respected "think tanks" response.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21043/

And to get back on topic this could be the end of the GVC program just recently revived last month for new bids - hope you like the BRADLEY.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 9th, 2011, 02:01 PM

Well this is why I use the sources I do. This will effectively end my discussion on the EFV unless a miracle comes to Detroit (And those folks could use the jobs lost.) and the CORPS. This is a very comprehensive article on the EFV program from beginning to end and for and against it. A very good read.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated-02302/
Here's to another open slot!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 17th, 2011, 03:21 PM

Personally I always thought the EFV was an over ambitions "magic bullet" program.

The USMC IS in desperate need of a replacement for the AAV (first fielded in 1972) and hopefully some the research done for the EFV will be used to develop a cost effective and "reasonable" replacement.

Marcello

January 24th, 2011, 02:47 PM

Don,
DELETE/USA/Mercenary Group/UNITS 725 & 726/ They have to go! Maybe being a little sensitive here :rolleyes: but, thinking back on my understanding of history in the modern era the peak interaction of mercenaries per say was in the period of the late 40's - early mid 80's focused in Africa, SE Asia (Malaysia comes to mind.) and parts of South and Central America. Most came from Germany(s), UK, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.S. after the war. The two most notable leaders came from the UK and France if I recall correctly and had the books "The Wild Geese" and "The Dogs of War" (Later movies; Wild Geese with the late great Richard Burton in it.) based on their exploits in Africa (Congo). Point being why is the U.S. the only country after using MobHack to have them from the samples looked at above? And in checking some of the African countries they have none in them where I would expect to see them as most of the mercenary actions took place there and in some respects today more, for security and training might still to a much lesser extent still be there today and again C. & S. America for the drug cartels (As a matter of conjecture for these if not material for action/adventure movies.)?

I just noticed this now. It seems pretty obvious to me that these "Mercenary Group" units are not representing Mike Hoare or Bob Denard style mercenary; rather they are a stand in for Blackwater and comparable security contractors.
We are talking about ex US servicemen, armed with american weapons and used for convoy/facility protection duties, VIP details and similar tasks. It makes some sense to have them in the US OOB as armament/training/morale is compatible with the US OOB, they and US troops have occasionally fought side by side and last but not least they have been employed in sizable numbers. That said they are obviously a "flavor" unit, not inherently more valuable than an additional F-4 with a different loadout or whatever; they could be easily shifted to the green OOB with some tweaking.

DRG

January 25th, 2011, 10:24 AM

The ARE meant to represent Contractors like Blackwater but they have been moved

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2011, 04:12 AM

The GCV program kinda like the EFV program kinda like the...well that one is in the JET...thread. Even my heads starting to spin a little and I'm not even possessed though some might question that!?! It's getting serious though if you're outside the country you might not fully understand the situation here caused by the last election, this was clearly shown after the State of the Union address by the President when normally each political party (Republicans & Democrats) has an opportunity to express their support or rebuttal to the Presidents speech. This year we also for the first time had a third response from the "Tea Party" backed Republicans, which support defense but are more fiscally conservative. I'm not expressing any political view here as this is fact based, however it's having it's ripple effect on defense issues as these will show.

The GCV program is meant to take us to the next gen IFV etc. beyond the BRADLEY, however as I brought to your attention it was cancelled (Budget etc.) in the early summer of 2010. It has since been resurrected with tighter guidelines in cost management and design features or has it?
Is it really needed?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21503/
The new GVC development teams.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21423/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21399/

More on the...EFV :shock:
All DoD components unified on the budget.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21567/
Is the DoD concept of Amphibious Warfare wrong?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21460/
Yes our old friend exceeds expectations or a line from a favorite comedy movie from across the pond "I'm not dead yet!"
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21482/

Everyone have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2011, 05:20 PM

Some APC news.

1. About the Future Combat System (FCS) program, what happened?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21826/

2. Further upgrades go into the BRADLEY.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21683/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 13th, 2011, 11:05 PM

Just finishing what I started yesterday in the transfer of "raw data" from the "patch thread" to the home threads. Q&A between Don and myself along with the pictures are again, as a reminder in the "Patch Thread".

APC Development...Continued.
M1. Mod: TURKEY/ACV-S IFV 30/JAN 2008/C3 P1O/30mm w/800Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds./ Originally when I entered this I thought to put it in as an "Add", however after thinking about it for a few days I've changed it to a "Mod" because the refs though from solid sources leave me with some doubt as to them serving with Turkey even after watching a FNSS production line video of them being built. I might be conservative here but my confidence level is at 85%+ that Turkey has them. This applies too M2 below as well.

M2. Mod: TURKEY/ACV-S IFV 25 ATGW/JAN 2008/C3 P10/25mm w/900Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds also 8 TOW B ATGW/As noted above.

A12. Add: SAUDI ARABIA/ACV-S IFV 30/JUN 2007/C3 P10/30mm w/800Rds & Coax 7.62mm w/2.2KRds/ This is definite though it was only a small order of 10 - 20 units.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning21.html Even within the Turkish Army these represent only a total of about 200 out of 2,200 that were converted from the
M113A units Turkey has. I would feel these would've been "up protected" as shown by this ref. A12 was done so without a doubt against 30mm Rds with Spall liners.
http://www2.ssm.gov.tr/katalog2007/data/151/uruning/uruning16.html ACV-S IFV 30 and 25 ATGW variants.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1287781534/last-1287824423/Modern+equipment+Of+Turkish+defence+industries
Pic:

A13. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 12.7/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO 12.7mm w/1.5KRds/ These APCs are to replace the aging fleet of the EE-11 Erutu class APCs developed in the mid 70's. Will address some of the types to be fielded here. Brazil will be buying these in the top of the line configuration for all types at the 30mm protection level, fully amphibious (There's a no brainier look at the geography.) and with all the bells and whistles in the sensor and targeting department this is to include the UT-30 turret and others. Brazil’s economy is the fastest growing one in the western hemisphere and in the top five in the world. They are also sitting on well over of a trillion dollars worth of new oil off the coast making it the second largest oil field in the world (Ref. 60 Minutes.), you can afford to modernize especially when your neighbor is getting billions in military aid from Russia. Will try to track down actual Brazilian name for the type (They like using names of snakes.) but, will improvise name with weapon type carried for now to get these in as this is a done deal. All refs will be added at the end.

A14. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR UT30/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO UT-30 30mm w/250KRds & Coax 7.62mm w/1KRds/ This is a highly versatile turret developed by ELBIT Systems. Per the refs this turret has no affect on crew or carry as most systems similar to this also have none as well. Ref. for this turret provided here also to include an excellent article on APC turrets as well.

A15. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR UT-30AT/JUN 2012/C2 P9/RO UT-30 30mm w/250Rds w/Coax 7.62mm w/1KRds and 4 SPIKE ATGW/
The Brazilian Marines are to get this weapons version also, as well as the Army with the following exception, the Marine VBTP-MR UT-30AT will be an 8x8, increase carry to C12 for the Marine 8x8 and this could be low, also again as with all types it'll be fully amphibious.
http://elbitsystems.com/Elbitmain/files/UT30.PDF
Again this is being bought fully equipped and protected. Adjust size as needed as set by your system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4a8ODHNbuA
A short video 1:41 in length worth watching and it might help in modeling it.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2059.html This and the next deal with the contract awarded for the UT-30 RO turrets.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21010/

And as I did with Malaysia’s ADNAN, I will include the SP mortar units here as well as follows:

A16. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 81M/JUN 2012/C4/81mm w/114Rds & RO 12.7mm w/2KRds.

A17. ADD: BRAZIL/VBTP-MR 120M/JUN 2012/C5/120mm w/70Rds & RO 12.7mm w/2KRds.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/v/vbtp_mr_130409.html
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/475/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ivecovbtpmr/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/vbtp_mr.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/brazilian_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/vbtp-mr_vbtp_iveco_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_d ata_sheet_description_information_uk.html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4269.html
Pic:

After a delay of a couple of years, Sweden will finally get its PATRIA AMV. As a reminder I'm only interested in when units are fielded (or operationally assigned to units etc.), so yes I noted that deliveries of the first batch of AMVs will be completed near years end 2013 however, do take note it also states they will be operational by early 2014. As much of this was in the works before the court challenges and allowing for Swedish efficiencies that's why I'm recommending JAN 2014 which I have on good authority is well within the 6 month "swag (or wag)" of not changing dates. This was just a reminder for those "newer to the site".

A18. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV APC/JAN 2014/C2 P10/RO PML 127 OWS 12.7mm turret w/2.5KRds.

A19. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV IFV/JAN 2014/C3 P9/LAV 30 turret w/ATK BUSHMASTER 30mm w/175 Rds & coax 7.62mm w/2KRds./

A20. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV ATGW/JAN 2014/C3 P8/ LAV 30 turret w/ATK BUSHMASTER 30mm w/175 Rds & coax 7.62mm w/2KRds. and 8 TOW ATGW/

As with the VBTP-MR 81mm & 120mm above will list the AMV AMOS below as the AMV is a new platform for Sweden. All will be transferred to the SPA/SPAA section further on to keep things in order.

A21. ADD: SWEDEN/AMV ATMOS/JAN 2014/C3/AMOS Twin Barreled Turreted 120mm Mortar w/56Rds (Split the difference of 50-60Rds.), 12.7mm w/1.2KRds & 7.62mm w/2KRds.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2220.html
About the LAV 30 Turret.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2219.html
About the LAV-30 TOW Turret.
http://www.gdls.com/classic/systems/lav30-tow.html
About the LAV-30 TOW Turret from the manufacturer.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product665.html
About the BUSHMASTER II.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amos.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Sweden-Picks-Patrias-AMV-as-its-Wheeled-APC-05579/
First article that covers the whole project etc.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/patria_amv.htm
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20055/ Legal.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20707/ Legal.
Pic:

M3. MOD: USA/BRADLEY/JAN 2011/UNITS 006, 305-306, 309, 655, 664, 666 (Yikes!) & 668/ As in the game add a new tech ERA/ARA package and upgrades below.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us-armys-bradley-remanufacture-program-updated-02835/#more-2835
Please note APR 06 '09 & SEP 22 '08 as these affect the above units. Others in the game were out of service by 2008 - 2009. But the big issue here is the ARA protection and "belly steel" for IED protection (I don't know what their 0 - 6 protection level is.).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gdrafaels-reactive-armor-equips-us-military-updated-02451/ This is one of those seek peek articles but gets what you need though, and it is definitely one of the most advanced and new ERA/ARA packages out there.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20012/
This covers the ERA upgrade.
Pic:

M4. MOD: ISRAEL/NAMER/JUN 2011/UNITS 087 & 088/
As in the game add HITFIST APS with 4 shots (From 2 launchers.) Similar to the TROPHY system it has been developed by the IDF for its APCs. Of note is the fact that it has been tested by the U.S. Army this past fall as well. With the NAMER to be manufactured in the U.S. soon, I won't think it too long before we see these systems on our armor as well. Not unusual between the two allies as Israel was the only country to be considered to get the AH-X (See HELO section.) outside the U.S. had the program succeeded.
http://defense-update.com/features/2009/june/idf_aps_090609.html
http://defense-update.com/wp/20100929_iron_fist_osd.html
This also covers the U.S. test.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2010/june/israeli_aps_09062010.html# In the 3rd Para. discussing IRON FIST is where it mentions the two twin launchers to be mounted on the NAMER.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4468294&c=FEA&s=SPE Discusses how the TROPHY and IRON FIST systems work at bottom.
http://www.prlog.org/10258921-idf-selects-imis-iron-fist-active-protection-system-for-the-new-namer-heavy-apc.html

DELETE: USMC/EFV/UNIT 189/ Was the USMC program cut by the SECDEF on 06 Jan. 2011 in an effort to reduce the defense budget by now 80 - 90 Billion dollars btwn now and FY 2016. The CORPS will reconsider its AMPHIB options, this again as the EFV gets cancelled on the 40th anniversary of their current ones. I will provide posts for this as it was just recently done last week.
Posts: Page 9; #83, #85 & #86.

This is a bonus that was helpful with some of the above.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/68973-briefing-stick-your-guns.html This would be an excellent source to check against APCs current in the game or for you game designers. The article is legitimate from Jane’s as I've read from the author and have read a small portion of it from the "free view" section. Nice that somebody can afford the subscription price!?! Well CINCLANTHOME wouldn't authorize the expenditure anyway.

And just made good sense to post these here as well.

Miscellaneous items to include a couple of deletions.

D1. DELETE: USA/MERCENARIES & MP SQUAD/UNITS 725 & 726 and 106 - 109 respectively./ I had hoped this search would've yielded more then this but I searched the game world pretty thoroughly and within the my thoughts on the matter as posted below.
Posts: APC thread Page 7; Posts #66 - #68.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 20th, 2011, 04:41 PM

News of the week.

Kuwait gets a new APC. Article touches on what the USMC might do to fill the EFV void.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Desert-Chameleon-APCs-for-Kuwait-06734/
Pic:
10851
Note to self for the 2011/2012 campaign.

Ukraine almost fumbles on it's arms agreement with Iraq. But it's back on track. Just don't use "used" parts on new equipment, customers just don't like that. Don the BTR-4 is safe!
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ukraine-Iraq-in-25-Bn-Weapons-Deal-06016/#more-6016

Updated order of battle for Iraq for you developers and general info for others.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraqi-Security-Forces-Order-of-Battle-Feb-2011-06764/#more-6764

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 21st, 2011, 07:38 PM

Don't know what happened to the Kuwati Desert Chameleon 6x6 picture, so hopefully these will post.

10852 10853

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

February 22nd, 2011, 01:02 PM

News of the week.

Kuwait gets a new APC. Article touches on what the USMC might do to fill the EFV void.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Desert-Chameleon-APCs-for-Kuwait-06734/

Regards,
Pat

Very doubtful.
With a crew of 3 and 7 passengers it's not something the USMC would probably be interested in.
They prefer to move an entire USMC squad (13 people) per vehicle.
Why?
Simple, volume/mass.
You can only fit so much aboard a ship, there's no way in hell to double the number of vehicles carried aboard to move the same number of people, not to mention twice as many vehicle and maintenance crew.

Marcello

February 22nd, 2011, 04:15 PM

There is no shortage of amphibious APCs but even the "most amphious" ones can really just wade comfortably across a river.
If you want autonomous landing over the horizont or something in that ballpark then only the chinese have something that kinda fits the bill.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 27th, 2011, 04:10 PM

News of last week.

The UAE has been spending billions in modernization and procurement of arms over the last couple of years here's another example. Will try to find to what level or type these improvements will be done too. The UAE would fall under what's in the game as the Gulf States.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22366/

Track for the 2011/2012 campaign.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 7th, 2011, 12:21 AM

News from last week.

1. Bulgarian low rate production of the BMP-30 to wind down over the next few years, however upgrades to the existing units to include the BMP-23 are to start to bring them up to NATO standards with their recent induction into NATO.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22435/

2. As added to I believe it was my second "patch post" at the end of November, Malaysia and Turkey have sealed the deal for
257 MCV 8x8 APC's (PARS.) as reported when I submitted them last fall.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw110225_1_n.shtml

3. As some might remember I thought the end was near for the HMMWV when the OSH-KOSH M-ATV came out. But like re-fried beans BAE still manages to keep the HMMWV coming back :eek:.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110223_hmmwv_isv.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 13th, 2011, 04:47 PM

News of the past week.

1. Brazil's VBTP-MR takes another step forward with the signing of the contract to procure the ELBIT UT-30 RO Turret. The bottom picture is a computer rendering of the VBTP-MR with the UT-30 turret. Again the Brazilian Marines will recieve the 8x8 version as part of the overall pkg. The USMC was also looking at the 8x8 version as well prior to the EFV being cancelled in January past. See the patch extract in this thread for further info to include the 8x8 and USMC interest in the refs.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2956.html

2. The USA GCV program and GAO report on it.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/770/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 26th, 2011, 10:03 PM

News of the last couple of weeks.

1. The USA keeps pushing for the GCV.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22933/

2. The German BOXER to make it's first deployment in AUG. 2011.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-fighter-still-remains-dutch-to-continue-with-boxer-apc-program-updated-02410/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 6th, 2011, 12:51 PM

Sorry I've been getting these out late but I've been busy in other areas this past week. So here's more news from last week...

1. USA continues to make improvements to BRADLEY to increase its life cycle abilities.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us-armys-bradley-remanufacture-program-updated-02835/#contracts

2. I think this next will be the final nail in the coffin for the EFV, I fully understand its current status in the game and agree with it. We have time and I won't recommend a change in status until I post my final 2011/2012 Patch Post. Alternatives are discussed in this article, but I would further suggust that Brazil's new VBTP-MR fully amphibious 8x8 Marine version might get a look down the road as well. It certainly would fully meet the carry requirements for a USMC squad (13 I believe?) plus crew and can carry wide range of weapons as well. See the APC section Patch Post here or go to that thread itself for more info. Of course I'll continue to follow the EFV as needed.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated-02302/#efv-contracts

Time get ready for work.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 24th, 2011, 01:41 AM

News of LW+:

1. TROPHY completes U.S. tests successfully.
http://www.rafael.co.il/Marketing/192-1702-en/Marketing.aspx

2. Brazil to upgrade it's M-113 APCs to the German WARAN status. Simply speaking it's a stretched M-113 with an added road wheel similar to Turkeys ACV-S.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23681/

3. BRADLEYS to get improved personnel survivability upgrades.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23915/

4. Our timeline is good as the first of the BTR-4 APCs are shipped to Iraq from the Ukraine.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/ukrainian_company_kmdb_shipped_the_first_batch_of_ btr-4_armoured_vehicle_for_iraqi_army_2004111.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 14th, 2011, 02:36 AM

The Turkish ARMA 6x6 has been bought by a foreign country (verified) as the first customer. What I have found is circumstantial evidence (NON BLOG) to suggust it was Saudi Arabia. This is not good enough to get it in the game, does anyone have any info that's ONLY from a reliable source or newspaper that says X country has bought it? Trying to get this very capable piece of equipment in. Yes have checked OTAKAR.

Thanks!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 15th, 2011, 01:04 AM

News of LW

1. BOXER finally gets fielded with the 23rd Mountain Ranger Brigade. The Bundeswehr is slated to get 220 units to replace the 2 ton Unimog trucks in current use.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/808/
TRACK AND CHECK THIS ITEM AGAINST GAME.

2. STRYKER to get double v-hull protection.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24385/

3. Happy 10th Birthday STRYKER! :birthday:
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24362/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 23rd, 2011, 02:05 AM

Though Don has taken care of this, I'm not one to waste good information once gained. So I'll just present the basics since I won't have to "fight" to get it in now. See MBT thread Post #151 Pg. 16, for initial reporting relating to Thailand apparently choosing to replace it's M41A3 tanks with the Ukraine OPLOT MBT. The Ukrainian BRT-3E1 (Export version of the BTR-3U.) is an updated version of the Russian BTR-80. The Ukraine is building the BTR-3E1 brand new. The first initial order of 96 units will be delivered by the end of 2011, with the first two delivered last September. The Thai Army should have (had) by the end of 2010 it's first 22 units while the Thai trainers were in the Ukraine for training in the instructor school starting last Oct. Another 121 units are to be ordered later this year. Units are to cover all operational types with emphasis on the APC and IFV types. Will use June 2011 based on training and equipment availability per first ref. here. Using new expanded format below, is this better for you?
ADD/THAILAND/JUN 2011/BTR-3E1 IFV/C3 P6/Turreted 30mm 250Rds, Coax 7.62mm 2500Rds and ATGW 2x4 KONKURS/DEFENCE 6x81mm S/AeroGL/All vehicle types are FULLY AMPHIBIOUS from the start./Can substitute 30mm AGL 116Rds for cannon./
Other types per last ref.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/196985/ukraine-offers-apc-sweetener-to-army
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/195846/an-expert-opinion-of-the-ukrainian-btr-3e1-apc
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_772.html
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btr3u.php
http://www.ds-pa.com/index.php/btr-3e1-new-vehicle-production

Pic:
11169 11170

Regards,
Pat

DRG

May 23rd, 2011, 10:47 AM

I'll need to double check the number of infantry the unit can carry. One souse says it's only 6 which "complicates" the OOB. Also, the sources seem to indicate the AGL is included as part of the standard package not a subsitute for the AC so the set up would be similar ( but not quite the same..) to the BTR-4 GROM in the Ukrainian OOB

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 23rd, 2011, 04:39 PM

Don,
You can rest assured that...

1. All my refs posted thus far including the manufacturers agree with C3 P6, which I'll re-post below for convenience sake. I'm currently playing a long campaign as the Thai vs. China and understand your concern with the OOB, the BTR-3E1 will be about useless in the carry of mainstream infantry units. If not mistaken it won't even be able to carry a Thai HMG section. Looks like RECON, ATGW etc. type units only get to ride in it. But as with the apparent OPLOT buy this was all about getting the "biggest bang for the buck" except for the CEASAR (6 UNITS) and GRIPEN (Both types and they will get the AESA (?) RADAR when available later this year or early next.) where they needed more capabilities vs current equipment.

2. In my "Night Stalker" mode missed the highlighted line of separation between systems on the manufacturers site so, the 30mm AGL is all inclusive to the turret and not a separate option for the cannon.

3. Lessons Learned: The first site is one of my trusted go to sites normally HOWEVER since my AC system has been operating with a mind of it's own lately, I'm a little HOT (Excuses, Excuses...) and missed checking it which would've answered all the questions by itself including why I couldn't find pictures showing all the systems carried on the turret (Those missing 30mm AGL...) on the net, because they had them!! See below.

4. The CORPS might face the same issues with some of the replacements to the EFV. I still think the Brazilian VBTP-MR 8x8 Marine version (See Post #92 A15.) still might get a look before all is said and done it's fully amphibous and will have more then enough carry and operational capibilities for the CORPS. Any takers?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated-02302/#efv-contracts

Refs for the BTR-3E1:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_3u.htm
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btr3u.php
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3874.html
Click on lower left links for turret and ATGW system info.

Pics:
11172 11173
11174
11175 UAE Marine version.

From my work calendar: "Constant and determined effort breaks down all resistence and sweeps away all obstacles" it does seem to fit at times.

This is for the AC Tech if he doesn't get here today after almost 2 weeks!!
11176

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 17th, 2011, 01:48 AM

Good News! We're on track with some items from the last PP 2010/2011.

1. PARS.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25059/

2. VBTP-MR and we have a real one to look at now.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4269.html

3. FRES-SV project ahead of schedule.
http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/news/scout_sv_turret_undergoes_live_firing_tests
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2201.html

4. USA GCV Program in jeopardy-again!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25359/

5. The cost of canceled vehicle programs to the UK.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6558619&c=LAN&s=EUR

6. My nemesis the ARMA 6x6, OTAKAR signs yet a second contract for it to ethier the same or a second unknown country. I WILL CRACK THE CODE-someday!?!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25065/

7. And just because I like it, the LAV-AD! As "Gunny" Vandeere likes to say @ work "GET SUM!!", Charles is the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 27th, 2011, 02:37 AM

Had to do some Post research for the current job at hand and thought some might find the following useful. It is a free registration site.
1. The site:
http://www.the-blueprints.com/

2. An example of what you might find:
11194 11195
11196

Hope this will be helpful to some.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 23rd, 2011, 01:20 AM

1. Gotta love India working hard to build a strong economy, military, education and let's not forget in ~15yrs or less surpass China in population, I wonder what the implications of that could lead to? For now though it's the search for newer military hardware.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news123924.html

2. Well at least Denmark is keeping their tanks, for now anyway, but it's time to replace their M-113's.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2011:denmark-army-launches-apc-replacement-program&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

3. The WARRIOR got some recent upgrades but I wasn't sure about putting it into the curent PP in progress. So here's a "Hail Mary Pass" to see if it's worth the effort.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25686/

4. An old friend that was on my very first PP from 2yrs. ago. The last of them are now delivered.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/840/

5. Brazil to maybe upgrade their M-113 APC as KMW opens up for business there.
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110414_kmw_laad.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 23rd, 2011, 03:05 AM

Found more stuff.

1. Poland to field a fully amphibious APC because of the weather of the last few years, yes it said the weather, which rain is and it causes flooding. And it just makes good sense.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120068&c=FEA&s=SPE

2. LAV-3 in for the long haul in Canada.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120066&c=FEA&s=SPE

3. How Heavy for the USA in the future? Here are some answers and questions.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120071&c=FEA&s=SPE

4. Fix those power plants or the Germans will.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120065&c=FEA&s=SPE

5. More on the Danish issue.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7120070&c=FEA&s=SPE

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 19th, 2011, 11:43 PM

Here's the data from the first Patch Post for 2011/2012 for review. Also related news to include one from my first PP from 2yrs. ago and two off the 2010/2011 campaign. So...

APC Development and...
Was going to post about the German BOXER but as the fielded date falls within just less then six months as agreed to a couple of years ago with Don I won't. See Pg. 11 Post #104 for further details. Also still going to hold off on the ARMA 6x6 however I found a source that says Bahrain has bought them for their Army NG Here is the ref for ARMA and they are the first to report it on these types of sites that I can find. This will be transferred to this thread later as always for all PP segments...
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1929:bahrain-turkish-arma-ifv-contract-signed&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
This will be brief:

R1. THAILAND/BTR-3E1 IFV/REMINDER/ADD per Posts #105 (Data in normal PP Unit Format.) - #107. /The additional 126 units were ordered but it always helps when the exporter (Ukraine) throws in free units to "sweeten the pot", I'd just settle for some free gas myself!?!
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news121016.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/thailand_preparing_the_purchase_of_an_additional_b atch_of_121_btr-3e1_armoured_vehicles.html
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/Kyiv-Design-Bureau-Bar-er-Anti-Tank-System-Ukraine.html

A1. ADD/KUWAIT/DESERT CHAMLEON/JAN 2011/C3 P7/RMTS Bushmaster 30mm Rds UKN as Primary Weapon and 12.7mm Rds UKN versions./This is a very versatile turret that is field changeable to carry a range of weapons from a 5.62mm to a 40mm cannon. The USMC is looking at the vehicle but more the turret as a possible upgrade to the AAV-7A1 as the EFV is now dead. The turret is U.S. made.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/desert_chameleon_6x6x6_armoured_vehicle_personnel_ carrier_data_sheet_specifications_information_uk.h tml
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/14/Kuwait-receives-new-armored-vehicles/UPI-20771295027994/
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929027&pu=1&rd=janes_com
http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/tags/armored-personnel-carriers/
Posts #93 & #94.
Pics:

D1. POLAND/BWP-2000/UNIT 442/DELETE/The BWP-2000 program was developed in the early 90's and cancelled by the end of the 90's by Poland. Only two prototypes were built. This program would eventually lead Poland to develop the ANDERS IFV which however suffered the same fate as the BWP-2000 and it was cancelled in 2010. What killed ANDERS was the economy and the fact that Poland was already contracted therefore committed to the ROSOMAK 8x8 of which 800 were ordered. No further development is underway for the BWP-2000. The ANDERS IFV and Light Tank versions are being marketed for foreign sales at this time. ROSOMAK is fielded and still under delivery status until I believe 2013.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1015.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/poland_polish_army_land_ground_forces_uk/poland_polish_army_land_ground_forces_military_equ ipment_armoured_vehicle_intelligence_information_d .html
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=25654
Post #1 last unit before "NEW UNITS".
http://aus.krakow.pl/army/polish-combat-platform-xxi-century/new-polish-light-tank-concept-and-a-new-family-of-vehicles
See lead in Para on ANDERS Light Tank status and note last sentence in the first full Para below for BWP-2000. Note the word "demonstrator" is used to describe both pieces of equipment. Also see THREAD "Polish Anders AFV" currently on Pg. 1of thread Posts #5 - #12 to include the first few sentences of Post #13 with focus on the refs.

D2. USMC/EFV/UNIT 189/DELETE/Though I brought up the "UNKNOWN" issue as to what it meant, I just can't ignore the reality of the situation at this point given the refs already presented in the last past PP #2 I think, but also since and as presented below. We'll not only need the slot for the likely "improved" AAV-7A1 but also for its eventual replacement. Here's another example for some (present company excluded) about putting in future systems some have asked about, the work involved in putting the unit "together", at some point changing the status in this case twice if deleted, and making room for the replacements. I believe this is what happened with the above D1 unit as well.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14179 The Commandant.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1540 Para 2 & 3 starting w/Secretary Gates...
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Efficiency_Justification_Book.pdf
Pg. 10.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63557
Para 7.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/02/defense-marines-ideas-for-new-vehicles-022111/
http://www.marines.mil/community/Documents/MarineCorpsConnection/e-mail%201-14-11/index.html
First two articles are both worth a look, though second is on topic.

News...
1. Malaysia to purchase ANOA from Indonesia.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news127525.html

2. Thailands BTR-3E1 on track. I believe one or both also updates the deal for Thailand to get the OPLOT tank as well from Ukrainians, the contracts were signed last week.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/thailand_will_buy_121_additional_btr-3e1_armoured_vehicles_personnel_carrier_from_ukrai ne_0708111.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2064:thailand-update-on-ukrainian-btr-3e1-deal-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

3. Brazil's VBTP also on track.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/VBTP-A-New-APC-for-Brazil-06048/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news129364.html
http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmain/area-in2.asp?parent=5&num=55&num2=55
Pic:
11330

4. USA still to get GCV, for now, but seems safe. The JTAV Program is now probaly dead based on budget sources recently reviewed by self.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/866/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/27112/

5. The CORPS MPC Program on track.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2255.html

6. Same for Canada with the CCV Program.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2268.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/news128597.html

7. BAE RG-41 has a good showing @ DSEi.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/27738/

8. Don if you're looking in, is this next worth the effort? BMOD up armoring their CVR(T) current fleet.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/UparmouredVehiclesBeginAfghanistanOperations.htm

And finally for GySgt. "Getsum" Charles V. and the help he gave me on the LAV-AD for the 5.5 Patch Post. And Don for getting it fixed-thanks!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

November 4th, 2011, 08:21 PM

LAV-A2 standard

Improvements include increased internal and externl armor upgrade package (additional survivability vs IED's, protection from 14.5 mm armor-piercing rounds, and include an anti-spall lining on the inside), automatic fire suppression equipment, and upgrading the vehicle's suspension to the Generation II standard to support the added weight of the new armor, replacing the turret hydraulics with an electric drive system, and replacing the thermal sight with the AN/PAS-13 Improved Thermal Sight System (provides the gunner and commander with thermal images, an eye-safe laser range finder, a fire-control solution and far-target location target grid information).

The LAV's command and control (LAV-C2) version will receive upgrades to improve its ability to operate on the move, including digital command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems, voice command and control nets, and satellite communications.

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_lav.php

Available 8/2010 or a bit earlier

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Leaving-LAV-25-Behind-8-28-2011.asp

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 7th, 2011, 11:56 PM

Well under the economic circumstances most militarises are having to operate under (Except for countries like Brazil, India, China and Russia that are seeing huge increases in defence spending compared to GDP.) immense pressure to do more with less, more with older systems (Recapitalization/RESET.) and rethinking of ongoing and future products. The following cover the above.

1. UK WARRIOR Program moves on as the upgrade to the CT 40mm is funded. The picture shows the WARRIOR with the CT 40mm mounted and with the armor upgrades already done as well. It should be noted that the armor upgrade as shown is all ready being used by the WARRIOR's in theatre in Afghanistan.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/bae_systems_will_support_warrior_infantry_fighting _vehicle_upgrade_with_cta_40_mm_cannon_0411111.htm l

2. The USA is putting the pressure on the competitors in the GCV Program to get it right and within the program costs as it gets ready to look at existing improved programs from outside the U.S. as alternatives spending $47 million dollars to research it. Again the pictures show the new and upgraded versions of the two leading alternatives choices.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/us_army_may_consider_buying_german_puma_or_israeli _namer_for_ground_combat_vehicle_program_0511111.h tml

I don't know if the WARRIOR needs an armor upgrade for the game currently or not I just haven't had the chance to check.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

November 9th, 2011, 08:33 AM

I don't know if the WARRIOR needs an armor upgrade for the game currently or not I just haven't had the chance to check.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Already covered as is the 40mm version I just need to upgrade the turret Icon and the photo

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 4th, 2011, 03:34 AM

For those of us trying to maintain equipment status, the job is about to get tougher, keeping track of the "fire sale" on all armor type units and where they're going. Here's the latest reported financial victim selling armor to balance their budget.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2603:bulgaria-mod-offers-wholesale-of-equipment-to-balance-2012-budget&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

2. Austria doing the the same, the SAURERS will phased out in 2014.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2572:austria-mod-to-phase-out-majority-of-tanks-inventories&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57

3. Columbia is looking for an 8x8 APC, could they become the first export customer for Sinapores TERREX? We should have a better picture of this by the fall.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2499:colombia-mod-evaluating-future-8x8-infantry-fighting-vehicle&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2012, 04:48 AM

Wulfir and Don I guess I can remove this from my list now based on the main page thread, Hilarious and environmentally...
BMP-1. As I see you entered Wulfirs items to your list here's what I have concerning BAE BvS10 Viking MKIIB for Sweden.
Recommend UK UNIT 703 VIKING TCV+ for modeling purposes with armor increase to a min. of 2 all around and IED increase as well but less then UK UNIT 705 WARTHOG TCV+, the WARTHOG still has a higher armor value. Also swim and vision should be equal to the WARTHOG as these were some of the improvements made for the VIKING MK II versions as well. I would recommend keeping the "MK II" in the name. For both UK UNIT 705 (Definitely.) and Swedish version unless Wulfir has other information to the contrary, further recommend the protection systems as on UK UNIT 703 be added as well.
For Sweden only the buy is for 40 units, delivery of first to be recieved on Oct 2012 order complete in Nov. 2013. Based on delivery and "normal" training times recommend fielding date of June 2013, was tempted to use Apr. however wanted two months "fluff" for building, delivery delays and any legal challenges the Swedes have demonstrated a penchant for after the PATRIA AMV issues I bought up in this and the Patch Post thread from last year or year before. I will be adding this for two other countries besides the UK later once weapons and some other issues are verified.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsswedish-armed-forces-to-procure-bvs10-viking-from-bae
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31361/
It should be noted that the UK took final delivery of 24 MK II versions in April of last year, recieving the first units around April of 2009. They were replaced by the better protected and capable WARTHOGS, can't remember if the MK II's are still in service with the UK or sold off. Ref supplied for general info and reevaluation as needed. Also info in this and the PP threads.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_light_armoured_vehicle/warthog_all_terrain_protected_mobility_vehicle_tec hnical_data_sheet_specificications_pictures.html

Hope this helps.

Almost 4am here need to hit the rack, my work week isn't over yet. Have a great weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2012, 02:02 PM

I've put this in the Jets...& Green White papers threads as well. JTLV program to get proirity as HUMMVEE recaptialzation program is to be scrapped.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DoD-fy13-budget-preview-07285/

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

February 2nd, 2012, 05:42 PM

CTV/M-ATV/JLTV

The Army requirements for the JLTV to have the same level of under body protection as the Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) resulted in this variant being eliminated because it proved to be too heavy to be transportable by Army CH-47F and Marine Corps CH-53K helicopters.

There will be two JLTV variants
Combat Tactical Vehicle (CTV) that can transport four passengers and carry 3,500 pounds
Combat Support Vehicle (CSV) that can transport two passengers and carry 5,100 pounds

As to dates (and I get annoyed by future systems as much as you do Don), best guess is 2015-2020.

Defense Aerospace (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/131808/crs-reports-on-gcv,-jltv-programs.html)
Defense Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M-ATV-A-Win-at-Last-for-Oshkosh-05602/)
Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ctv.htm)

DRG

February 2nd, 2012, 06:24 PM

Yeah, call back in three years and I'll jump right on it......... :)

Suhiir

February 2nd, 2012, 06:48 PM

Yeah, call back in three years and I'll jump right on it......... :)

Deal

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 6th, 2012, 12:51 AM

Alright here's the APC items I promised last week. Some update info as well on a couple of game entered equipment from Patch 5.5. Others are program updates for the USA, USMC, Canada and Columbia.

1) Iraqi second shipment of the BTR-4 from the Ukraine on the way. As was noted prior to and at submission there were a couple of issues with the BTR-4 that were rectified but, caused the delivery to slip on the first shipment until 4/2011. Game entered for 1/2011again within the six month "swag" so would recommend no action.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2422.html
UPDATE.

2) Iraq again, to update their M113A2s, this should bring them up to the latest USA game version. Work being done by BAE and the USA Anniston Depot. Work to be completed this month.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/bae_systems_awarded_31_million_contract_to_refurbi sh_m113a2s_personnel_carrier_for_iraq_1002121.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbae-to-refurbish-m113a2s-for-iraqi-army
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2890:iraq-440-refurbished-m113a2s-on-order&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
ADD.

3) Staying with the above theme, BAE to update Brazil's M113B to the M113A2 MKI standard work has begun, thinking enough will be configured for a 01/2013(?) fielding date. Work to be completed in 11/2013 on all units.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2011_army_military_defence_news_uk/bae_systems_awarded_41.9_million_to_assist_in_m113 _upgrades_for_army_of_brazil_2412111.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/30944/
ADD.

4) Russian Army did get the BPM-97 after all. I went ahead and submitted this in my first equipment submission, we had some reservations as we knew that the Russian Border units (And basis for the original submission.) had them along with the Internal Security Forces but, the info was "vague" about the Army. Will recheck original fielding date submitted, but based on this ref. thinking 01/2009.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bpm-97-apc/
ADD.

5) Columbia looking for an AFV. Italy makes an offer and the STYKER passes field tests, refs 1 & 2 respectively.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2979:colombia-italian-cio-offers-freccia-8x8-afv-to-the-army&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2853:colombia-stryker-8x8-passes-army-field-trials&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
TRACK.

6) Don't think this was addressed, but France gets the BvS10. France took delivery of 53 units at the time of this ref. these are the same as the UK & Dutch units, will recommend fielding of 01/2012. Sweden to also get this, fielding for theirs 06/2013.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsfrench-army-receives-first-bvs10-vehicles
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsswedish-armed-forces-to-procure-bvs10-viking-from-bae/
VERIFY/ADD IF NEEDED/Sweden ADD.

7) Indonesia orders BMP-3 from Russia. This refs indicates also that the Russian Army stopped ordering them in 2010. Also they've bought more ANOA APCs as well, also a "first entry". I believe the version shown in the 2nd ref is the one being brought.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/indonesia_has_ordered_60_russian_made_armoured_inf antry_fighting_vehicles_bmp-3_0102121.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2852:indonesia-army-orders-russian-bmp-3&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2987:indonesia-army-buys-apc-ordnance-from-local-pindad&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
VERIFY/ADD IF NEEDED.

8) Kenya buys APC from Israel.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2794:kenya-armored-vehicles-from-israel-f-15-reports-dismissed&catid=36:africa&Itemid=55
VERIFY/ADD

9) NEXTAR offers the VBCI for Canadas CCV Program. Testing is on going currently at the Aberdeen Proving grounds in Maryland.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2011_army_military_defence_news_uk/nexter_systems_proposes_vbci_vehicle_for_close_com bat_vehicle_ccv_program_of_canadian_army_1812114.h tml
FYI/TRACK CCV Program.

10) Russia to field first BOOMERANG APC's by 2013. Mass deliveries by 2015. Thinking 01/2014 or 06/2014(?).
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2939:russia-army-will-incept-new-boomerang-apcs-in-2013&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
TRACK/ADD.

11) ST Kinetics submits the TERREX 8x8 for the USMC MPC Program. This is among the first "smart" APC's made, you'll find more info as with some already mentioned in the earliest posts made to this thread. This is an updated version to the one first submitted FYI. Of course since it's for the CORPS it's fully amphibious.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/st_kinetics_to_propose_terrex_8x8_vehicle_for_u.s. _marine_corps_personnel_carrier_program_2503121.ht ml
http://www.military-today.com/apc/terrex_av81.htm
FYI/TRACK MPC Program.

12) The CORPS is showing up the USA between their two programs, will the USA ever get their act together on the GVC? It remains to be seen, thank goodness the BRADLEY is as capable as it is. An update on the GCV Program. Reference 2 offers a couple of other options the USA is looking into.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-USAs-GCV-Infantry-Fighting-Vehicle-3rd-time-the-charm-07048/
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2955:us-army-to-test-namer-cv90-aifvs&catid=37:north-america&Itemid=59
FYI/TRACK GVC Program.

Well I believe that's all of them some again were put off, due to the great inputs by others for 6.0, truely a job well done.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 27th, 2012, 11:09 PM

Though worked on first, it'll be last, so ends the news blitz as all presented today and tomorrow (?) should close out the items I'll be submitting and tracking for the upcoming 2012/2013 Campaign after a short break for some game time that I haven't had since last fall. :( Any "Tail End Charlies will be posted up to 1 June. Have a Great Summer!!

1. USA assessing existing systems foe their GCV Program. Evaluations started just over a week ago. The new PUMA I see isn't being evaluated now it was being considered in an earlier maturation of the GCV Program. This is I believe the third restart for the program.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2441.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35775/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/armies_in_the_world_analysis_focus/united_states_army_assesses_current_vehicles_as_pa rt_of_gcv_ground_combat_vehicle_program_2305122.ht ml
FYI AND TRACK.

2. Norway buys more CV9030 MKII APCs.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product264.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34701/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnorwegian-army-to-buy-new-cv90-ifvs-from-bae/
FYI.

3. UK MOD committed to AFV SV Program.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2436.html
FYI AND PROGRAM TRACK.

4. More on Austria as this has already been posted earlier. The retirement of weapons systems to include armor to be completed by 2014, this date has remained unchanged from when first posted several months ago from different sources. This is more specific regarding other named systems then previous posts were.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsaustrian-army-decommission-armoured-vehicles
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34696/
MODIFY UNIT END DATES AS ETHIER DEC 2013 OR JUN 2014.

5. More from Canada, this again sounds like the USA GCV Program but, it's their CCV Program. See we're really not so different after all!?! :p
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsaustrian-army-decommission-armoured-vehicles
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newscanadian-dnd-restarts-bidding-for-ccv-programme/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/
FYI AND TRACK PROGRAM.

6. Ukraine mounting new ZTM-1 30mm onto it's BTR-3U/BTR-3E. Don't know up front if I'll get to this or not. I'll try to find more info on this weapon.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33954/
MODIFY UNITS.

7. Argentina wants to purchase Brazil's VBTP-MR (Now add GUARANI.).
The first ref is better detailed info on the unit. Also we have pictures to use now where we didn't when first submitted.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/brazilian_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicle_uk/guarani_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sh eet_description_specifications_pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/the_new_brazilian_armoured_vehicle_guarani_will_be _bought_by_argentina_for_u.n._missions_2205121.htm l
TRACK

8. Indonesia asks "Can I have another sir!" and orders more
BMP-3F's for their Marines.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3278:indonesia-marines-orders-more-bmp-3f&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-supply-bmp-3f-vehicles-indonesian-army/
FYI.

9. Columbia is shopping for new armored vehicles (And other equip.) because of their very busy neighbor to the south...Venezuela.
So let's start there first as this is a tale of two countries whose stories are linked together along with Brazil and a couple of others.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/venezuela_will_receive_additional_deliveries_of_we apons_from_russia_in_the_next_few_months_2305121.h tml
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/army_of_venezuela_will_receive_12_russian_bm-30_smerch_mlrs_multiple_launch_rocket_system_25051 21.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3339:venezuela-army-orders-smerch-300mm-mrls&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58

So Columbia is reacting by...AND REMEMBER IF YOU HAVE TO BE #1, THIS ISN'T A BAD WAY TO START. Reportrd on this a couple of years ago but politics got in the way then concerning MERKAVA.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/israel_has_offered_the_procurement_of_main_battle_ tank_merkava_iv_and_namer_apc_to_colombia_2405122. html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iveco_defence_vehicles_in_talks_with_colombia_for_ delivery_8x8_vbm_freccia_infantry_vehicle_2504121. html
TRACK.

10. Are you ready for a new BOXER? Germany is LANCE.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_boxer_armoured_vehicle_lance_turret_presented_ to_customers_in_unterl_for_first_time_1805125_2.ht ml
TRACK.

11. Submitted for 5.5 or 6.0 the RTA is more then happy with their Ukrainian purchase. This is representative of reports made at the time from my other sources.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsukrainian-btr-3e1apcs-excel-during-kocha-singa-2012
FYI.

I believe this is it for the APC's. Meant to have had this posted many hours, but a little nasty storm named BERYL radically altered my plans for today. To those in Jacksonville FL. I've seen on here I hope you and yours made it through alright. It'll be our turn overnight with 45-65mph with gusts to +70 winds and inches of much needed rain. Sorry Don it's been decades for an event like this here.

Happy Memorial Day! Don't forget about the one's who served that are no longer with us.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 24th, 2012, 08:26 PM

Thanks to my little affliction with the "PI" and the summer cold that came with it at the end, a little more in this area as the news never stops. For Don it's good to see your sense of humor is intact, though if it had occurred in the woods the process might've been more fun!?! ;)

1. I found this and the next from an unexpected source, however it shows the importance of diversification in the highly competitive world of defence industry news. Anyway a very good overview of the most current IFV Programs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/DT_06_01_2012_p36-459519.xml&p=1
FYI.

2. A pretty good article and update on Germanys PUMA IFV, And for Don, there might be info here that might be useful if any modifacation is needed for German UNITS 99 & 100.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/DT_06_01_2012_p28-458567.xml
TRACK/FYI.

3. Iraq buys 500 to be refurbished Army MTLB APCs from Bulgaria. I believe these conform the ones CURRENTLY in the Iraqi OOB.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2473.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/bulgaria_has_signed_contract_for_sale_of_500_mt-lb_multirole_tracked_armoured_vehicles_iraq_160612 4.html
FYI.

4. Norway will RESET all current CV-90s and increase current numbers with new unita as well. This is Norways largest Army Project since the end of the Cold War, and the reporting below shows that.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3480:norway-bae-closing-in-on-cv90-deal&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/1011/?SID=7cdf780fbb36cbd48ff9ced399b5ecfa
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnorwegian-army-receive-167bn-worth-cv-90-armoured-vehicles
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/bae_systems_will_upgrade_build_cv90_armoured_infan try_fignting_vehicle_for_norwegian_army_2206123.ht ml
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnorwegian-army-orders-cv90-vehicles-bae/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/36764/
TRACK/ADD.

5. USA GCV Program lacking imagination?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/36069/
FYI.

6. Swedish CV-9040 to be upgraded with EVO Protection package.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35969/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/german_company_ibd_presents_evolution_concept_for_ mbt122_tank_and_cv9040_infantry_armoured_0706121.h tml
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/afv-evolution.html
MODIFY/ADD.

7. USA/USMC updating LAV-AT vehicles with TOW ITAS, TI/GSR and turret system. The issue raised here is how current are the U.S. infantry TOW Systems as ITAS has been fielded since 2007? I sense another "rabbit hole" issue again!?! This ref provides further related links at the bottom.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/LAV-AT-Modernizing-the-USMCs-Wheeled-Tank-Killers-07373/#more-7373
MODIFY/ADD/TRACK/INVESTIGATE ITAS Infantry use.

8. Raytheon displays full LRSS prototype as a further development of the LAV-III to the Canadian Army.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-displays-lrss-prototype-canadian-army
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/raytheon_unveils_light_armoured_vehicle_reconnaiss ance_surveillance_system_for_canadian_army_0206121 .html
TRACK/MODIFY.

9. SCOUT SV (FRES) production has been pushed back to 2018 and won't be fielded until 2020, maybe. There's a reason why the CVT(R) was upgraded (And in the game after Don recovered my fumble on missing it's submission though posted. THANKS AGAIN!). First ref is for background.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/scout-specialist-vehicle/
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsuk-mod-may-delay-scout-sv-programme-say-sources
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3359:uk-fres-fielding-pushed-back-due-to-budget-constraints&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
TRACK DATES.

10. JAVELIN sucessfully test fired from an AV.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/successful_javelin_missile_firing_test_from_an_arm oured_vehicle_in_winter_conditions_norway_1606123. html
FYI/TRACK.

11. The USA says "we have enough" but Congrss has other thoughts on that.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120519/DEFREG02/305190002/U-S-Army-House-We-Enough-Vehicles?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
FYI.

12. I believe in the 3-4years I've caused Don to lose his hair and more since submitting and modifying equipment issues, the BRADLEY has been there I think at least twice(?) well what's three "between friends". BUSK III is here, for game purposes the turrent enhanced survivbilty portion is at play-maybe. Don your call here.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/36742/
INVESTIGATE TURRET ISSUE/MODIFY.

I think my work is now finished here in the APC area. Don I'll post on the TOW issue elsewhere, I came across the date on ITAS from info I already had on hand.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 27th, 2012, 02:16 PM

I had little hair left before you came along, all you've done is made what's left simpler to look after....... :)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 26th, 2013, 12:29 AM

Well it's been over 1/2yr. since I posted anything here but that's when things really went to :censor: as noted elsewhere so all I had was a reminder (R1.) note for the APC/IFV world in Patch Thread Post #2 for the 2012/2013 campaign. I promise there will be more next year in this area, Jets/Planes, SPA/SPAA and MRAPS to a lesser degree mostly in the Middle East, Africa and Near Asia. So...

APC Development…

R1. ADD/RUSSIA/JAN 2010/BTR-82/C3 P7 Both/TI/GSR 50 (3Km) Both/Weapons Turreted 14.5mm w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds/6 Smoke Dispensers and EW Both/BTR-82A/Weapons 2A72 30mm cannon w/500Rds and coupled coaxial 7.62mm w/2K Rds//These are Russia's most advanced APCs. It will replace the
BTR-70/80 series APCs. It is supposed to be fully amphibious. The 30mm ammo of the BTR-82A is supposedly a high density ramjet type projectile to allow it to inflict greater damage on targets. I keep coming up with 500 Rds for the 30mm on the NET. Sounds almost like the UK/French case mounted 40mm round of the FRES. Better armor protection then any BTR-80 variant.
Protection to the level of the BTR-90M for armor?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...res_video.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.deagel.com/Wheeled-Armore...000348008.aspx
Pic:

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 17th, 2013, 03:30 AM

Please cue the Monty Python intro...And now for something a little different. A little Spring cleaning is in order as the 2013/2014 Campaign is to start soon.

1) First up the CORPS in it's search to replace the EFV Program. Any more it seems the programs are running together. So by way of updating and cleaning up, here's where the CORPS is in the testing and evaluation process. The HAVOC 8x8 based on the coverage it's getting seems to be the front runner for now.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/havoc_apc_8x8_modular_armoured_personnel_carrier_v ehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_picture .html
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2504.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/lockheed_martin_receives_u.s._marine_corps_contrac t_for_havoc_8x8_apc_vehicle_study_and_demo_1708121 .html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/lockheed_martin_completes_swim_tests_with_the_havo c_8x8_armoured_for_mpc_competition_0504133.html
Pic:
12502
TRACK.

2) UPDATE: As submitted in the game, after all the legal issues as reported prior to and when submitted SWEDEN had recieved the first of it's PATRIA AMV's a slight date adjustment might be needed but will verify from the Patch Post and the game later.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2625.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/patria_to_deliver_first_patria_amv_8x8_armoured_pe rsonnel_carrier_to_swedish_armed_forces_0503133.ht ml
VERIFY DATES.

3) UPDATE: Well the following is another example of everyone reports the "x equipment is being delivered..." Until unreported issues as R&D problems, Customer modifications (Think THAI OPLOT here as just addressed in a second Patch.), Contract issues, Economics, Order Cancellations etc. etc. make the "equipment submission business" such a PITA. I think Don and some others now understand why I work the way I do in trying to follow up on equipment I've "signed" my name to just because of the following. MAYLASIA UNITS 30-32 will need to be renamed and dates moved out to around 6/2015. However there is an upside. A. We know now it's the better protected AV-8 (PARS 8x8 stronger brother.) and have more specific data on it's capabilities and types ordered. B. It was customer modified. C. It will have an ATGW now mounted which was just conjecture when submitted in 2010(?). D. More on the FCS is now known as well. E. BETTER PICTURES!!! Alright that was reaching a bit. Anyway here's the data sheet...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/malaysia_malaysian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_u/av8_av-8_8x8_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_technical _data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
MODIFY DATES AND WEAPONS/ADD NEW UNITS AS NOW IDENTIFIED.

4. UPDATE: As now in the USA OOB with a couple of issues already noted by Imp (John) and acknowledged by Don, I was going to submit this for the coming Campaign based on some of the info used to get the M1A2 SEP V2 into the game along with posts from the MBT Thread concerning the increased TI/GSR of some tanks in the game. Anyway I was looking to combine the BUSK III package and TI/GSR 50 issue into one BRADLEY submission. PLEASE PLEASE understand that beyond reading Johns thread on the topic I do not know nor have I checked at this time whether the two "new" BRADLEY's in the game have the BUSK Protection package or not.
So here's what I was going to submit for that unit.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
http://www.army.mil/article/82060/Bradley_Urban_Survivability_Kits_installed_early__ under_budget/
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_058241/bradley-upgrades-ahead-of-schedule-and-under-budget?_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=j4zLRRlbZmyLWCLxbhg9mLgtyLTv7QLQy2J22 3Wy50WytZyqlx7V%211194998700&_afrLoop=747874680137000&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=t76mocwtg_4&baeSessionId=MrJdRVGDNnDzJyDJ1bRJTjhJpPjmVXdyJfpV1 syVGvt1c12GMMFJ!1524874388#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnu ll%26baeSessionId%3Dj4zLRRlbZmyLWCLxbhg9mLgtyLTv7Q LQy2J223Wy50WytZyqlx7V%25211194998700%26baeSession Id%3DMrJdRVGDNnDzJyDJ1bRJTjhJpPjmVXdyJfpV1syVGvt1c 12GMMFJ%25211524874388%26_afrLoop%3D74787468013700 0%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1aljhv29un_4
Pic:
12501
FYI for modifications(?)

5. RUSSIA and that darn BOOMERANG APC again. Prototype for 2013, this is older from last summer. No news of it to this point.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/first_prototype_of_the_new_russian_wheeled_armoure d_vehicle_boomerang_will_be_ready_for_2013_0707122 .html
TRACK.

6. POLAND the ANDERS front has been quite for sometime now, however, last August they ordered 200 more 8x8 ROSMAKS.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4011:poland-mnd-orders-200-additional-8x8-rosmoks&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
FYI.

7. RUSSIA likes wheels better then tracks a growing tread in the APC world.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3624:russia-army-opts-for-wheeled-afv-instead-of-tracked&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120716/174633902.html
FYI.

8. USMC and it's MPC Program has selected SINGAPOREs TERREX 8x8 for testing as well, among others. I reported on TERREX in one of my first posts in this thread (Then as a 6x6.) It was developed by TIMOTHY...of Ireland and is one of the most advanced APC out there you probaly never heard about. Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/st_kinetics_terrex_armoured_vehicle_selected_by_u. s._marine_corps_for_mpc_program_0711121.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4145:usmc-contenders-for-future-acv-amphibious-vehicle--most-offer-european-designs-&catid=37:north-america&Itemid=59
TRACK.

9. UPDATE: I believe we were right on target for the BTR-82A. Don thanks for getting it in early.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/the_new_btr-82a_enter_in_service_with_russian_army_unit_based_ in_the_republic_of_abkhazia_2104131.html
FOLLOW UP.

10. UPDATE: That darn EFV still in the news, but again for all the wrong reasons for this dead program. The issue is when the manufacturing equipment will be moved to Ga. to support the FANG Program (Just go with the flow here, the USMC has more "APC" programs going then most countries do!?!)
more jobs for us. Good background on how a fully supported project got out of control. F-35 fans pay attention here.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated-02302/#post-efv-acv-aav-slep-mpc
FYI.

Alright been a busy week and not helping my cause by staying up any later, so for some have a good night and others have a great day or evening!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 19th, 2013, 09:05 PM

A couple of "tail end charlies" that are an extension of the previous post. For me thank god, are FYI issues. The BRADLEY BUSK III one for Don will be of some use as we have a "full on" picture to use for ICON purposes. Sorry I missed these but it's the "vampire hours" I keep after work normally.

1. BRADLEY BUSK III...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/bae_systems_bradley_combat_vehicle_busk_iii_upgrad e_ahead_of_schedule_and_under_budget_1007126.html
If you missed it in the first refs provided earlier, you'll have noticed the first units equipped with them were in S. Korea. Don unless you see something I missed, it appears USA UNITS 305 & 899 will just need to be renamed, protection upgraded and require a new icon for one or both units and I hear you that's enough work!?!
ASSIGN REMINDER # in PP.

2. More on the USMC "Everything Future APC Amphib Program" or EFAAP. This is team BAE/IVECO with the SUPERRAV 8x8.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/bae_systems_and_iveco_successfully_completed_amphi bious_tests_with_superav_8x8_armoured_1005131.html
If you haven't noticed, click on the yellow highlighted for links to the data sheets for the equipment and other info.
Gotta go, GOT is coming on! Day off priorities don't you know!?!

Regards,
Pat

sabresandy

May 30th, 2013, 06:52 AM

DRG

May 30th, 2013, 07:37 AM

........ on the list to investigate

Don

DRG

May 30th, 2013, 07:45 AM

1. BRADLEY BUSK III...

If you missed it in the first refs provided earlier, you'll have noticed the first units equipped with them were in S. Korea. Don unless you see something I missed, it appears USA UNITS 305 & 899 will just need to be renamed, protection upgraded and require a new icon for one or both units and I hear you that's enough work!?!Regards,
Pat

??? Pat... why would unit 305 be involved with this at all ?

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 1st, 2013, 02:55 AM

Don,
Simply misinterpreted Johns post in the USA OOB Thread. I thought he mentioned both units were improved with TI/GSR 50 as a "side bar" to his core issue. So in the near term, only USA UNIT 899 will need to be changed. However remember I believe initially 250-285 units were converted with the BUSK III pkg. All others are to follow but don't remember when that deadline was, except it is in the "near term". I already have info that the BRADLEY A3 will be converted (Like earlier mods.) to carry more troops. This is due to budget issues and delays in the GCV Program. So there's another slot down the road and toilet. As I've mentioned already in various posts basically is..."The new will be the old/current types modified" i.e. T-90 something anybody!?! Sorry for delay.

Added edit... These two refs combined provide an overview of the BUSK III pkg. First ref just scroll down to BUSK. Next ref was the one posted earlier for the picture and mentions BUSK III fixes not mentioned in Ref 1. None mentioned the add on armor in the picture of Ref. 2, and nor have I seen that add on armor configuration in earlier models, similiar yes, but this is something different I believe at least in coverage of the hull if nothing else. Don't you hate it when I get tired? I hear you, one more to go, so again good night.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry_uk/bae_systems_bradley_combat_vehicle_busk_iii_upgrad e_ahead_of_schedule_and_under_budget_1007126.html

Good Night and have a great weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 1st, 2013, 07:38 AM

Unit 898 and 899......

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 17th, 2013, 04:58 PM

While getting the pictures for the ADF M1A1 AIM SA, I noticed along with the exercise they were in were a bunch of pictures of the M113AS4 the current M113 variant being used by the ADF. Curious about the AUSCAM(O) for them and remembering that I thought I had submitted it in the "old" format of "Hey here's a piece of equipment not in the game, it'd normally have it's own post and Don would get it in the game (See this Thread Pg. 5 Post #45 dated 5/21/2010 if you want.) that being said it got by us and it wasn't until later that year I started to use the current format and realized I missed it again :doh: after I checked the AUS OOB last night. So Ref. 1 shows an article where the last M113A1 chassis variants were used in their final live fire exercise in JUN 2010. I have not been able to identify the type pictured in the article though it says they were the last unit to operate them in the exercise.
http://digital.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=36966&startpage=page0000030

As for M113AS4 it was developed under the Land 106 Program that started in 1992 and would be completed with the final delivery of the M113AS4 by DEC 2012. The first 4 units would be delivered on NOV 15, 2007 and the ADF (7th Batt.) would get 16 by the end of that year being fully operational.
So I'm thinking JAN. 2008 start date for them.
Ref. 2 covers this in detail as the DID site normally would. Ref. 3 was the original one I used from the first para. Highlights of the M113AS4 are...
Firepower: A new Australian designed and built electrical turret, with improvements designed to lessen the battering its occupant takes. It will host a new .50 caliber weapon that sports a quick change barrel and day/night sights.

Protection: Add-on external armor kits to protect against weapons up to 14.5mm; internal spall liners; hull reinforcement to improve mine protection; fuel tanks moved from inside to outside. The change in configuration also allowed the introduction of stealth characteristics into the design by decreasing the overall turret profile, and reducing the vehicle’s radar cross-section and infra-red signature.
It should be noted that a 14.5mm would make Swiss Cheese of normal M113 or at the very least hurt badly. -FBT

Internal: Compartment improvements like heat mitigation measures and better stowage of equipment externally where it isn't so much in the way. New electrical and fuel systems; a land navigation system that combines GPS and INS.
All above from DID.

Types looking to add in AUSCAM are...
Armoured Personnel Carrier (M113-AS4 APC). Most common variant.
Armoured Command Vehicle (M113-AS4 ACV) (?)
Armoured Logistic Vehicle (M113-AS4 ALV) Ordnance Carrier.
Armoured Mortar (M125-AS3 AM)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Australias-M113-APC-Family-Upgrades-05133/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm

Well my times up, reminder is done and will end with pics:
12547 12548
12549 12550
12551

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 18th, 2013, 08:44 AM

Pat..... note that the reports clearly say ( i have added the emphasis.....)

Vehicle's hull provides protection against up to 14.5-mm rounds.

From the way it's worded I would conclude it DOES NOT protect against 14.5mm rounds since it only protects " up to " 14.5mm

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 18th, 2013, 12:25 PM

I think this is where I say OOPS! So this should have the protection of a USA M113A3 then as I believe it had spall liners as well. The only added benefit I see then is the values you give towards survivability in mine protection and the fact the fuel storage is now external. Also these are "stretch" M113 versions, if you haven't noticed before this, note the extra road wheel set. Got more ADF pictures to consider for the type as follows...
12552 12553
12554 12555
12556

In the upper left picture note the name the crew gave it-that's pride and balls (baseball, football etc. for clarification.) considering the ADF expects this type to be in the fight.

Thanks again Don, I guess the "up to and to include" would've been better from my perspective!?!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 9th, 2013, 06:46 PM

Thanks for the information! It's nice to find a clearinghouse for the news from the defense industry.

I'd like to bring up some issues with the Russian APCs and IFVs in their OBAT, which is obat11. Patch 7.0 did a nice job of trimming out some of the cancelled BTR-90 variants; I'd like to take it a few steps further. First, let's look at the many MT-LB mods. Specifically, OBAT11 numbers 213 (MT-LBM-6M1A3), 332 (MT-LBM-6M1B2), 800 (MT-LBM-6MA), 801 (MT-LBM-6MB), and for that matter 872 (MT-LBM). To the best of my knowledge, these vehicles showed up once at an arms expo, and were promptly never heard from again. I find no reports of any of the MT-LB modifications actually coming into service.

Likewise, there are a number of programs that never seem to have taken off: they are units number 305 (BTR-70M), 787 (BMP-2 Berezhok), 788 (BMP-2M), 850 (BMP-2M (-)), and the heavy APCs 343-345 (all the BTR-Ts). While I believe the BMP-T is on order by the Russian army, I find no indication that the BTR-T is actually being produced. The rest, the BMP and BTR modification programs, appear to exist only in advertisements; the Russians don't look like they've bought off on them.

Pending confirmation, so far as it's possible with Russian military equipment, I think it's fair to delete all of these from the OBAT for Russia and for the RED force (wherever they overlap).

I am still digging into this and some details are clear and others .....not so clear but I DO find references to the BTR-70M.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/btr-70_8x8_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_technica l_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

indicates that vehicle exists

BTR-70M: Modernized version with turret, diesel engine and rear hull section of the BTR-80.
The BTR-T though does seem to be a concept no one has wanted. The best I could find was........" state-run production association developed and manufactured a prototype of the BTR-T"

I am happy to remove things especially in that OOB as there aren't a lot of free spaces left for legitimate additions but I'm hesitant to rip things out without digging further..especially things like the BTR-70M

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 10th, 2013, 03:12 AM

The BTR-T is shown below...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_t.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1021.html
Now that there's some info for others to look at...The concept was developed in ~1997 based on the need that arose from the Checeyan campaign where Russias weaknesses were exposed in the APC/IFV vehicles used at the time. Prototypes were built, but as ref 1 above shows the "Entered Service" block is blank for a reason from this primarly Russian source. Isreal also ran a similiar development program at about the same time and I believe so did the Ukraine. Companies are still ofering this conversion as it is estimated there are as many as a 100,000 T-55
tanks world wide which of course includes foriegn manufactured ones as well. Russia would look into the concept with the T-72 and T-90 hulls as well but these were never fielded ethier. However as I've posted already, you will see or there are plans to have an IFV based on the ARMATA tank. These will be designed and built from the ground up though as opposed to being a modification.

The BTR-70M RUNNING OUT OF TIME but...
Russia has them basically added 4 smoke dischagers per side, has a single engine from the BTR-80 vice two GAZ ones as you've noted. Ref is proof of life for the type. Aberbyzan (Sorry for spelling.) ordered modified ones (130) using South African turret/FCS. If you need more I'll give it to you later-I need some sleep.
http://en.ria.ru/video/20110926/167136762.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 10th, 2013, 04:06 AM

BTR-70M...
There are so many mods out there it'll make your head spin!! They gotem. Ref 1 added because he's very through especially dealing with "hard to find" items. I've crossed referenced different equipment issues many times against his info with no problems over the years.
http://www.pmulcahy.com/wheeled_apcs/russian_wheeled_apcs.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1118&printmode=1
http://www.minotor-service.com/en/btr-60pbm-a1-and-btr-70m-a1-apc.html
http://international-defence-review.blogspot.com/2011/04/first-sighting-of-enhanced-azeri-armour.html
http://www.afv-news.com/2012/10/btr-70-apc/

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 10th, 2013, 09:33 AM

Thanks Pat. Be aware you have to be very careful with Pmulcahy info. Some of it is solid but some of it is aimed at "Twilight 2000 " " a role-playing game set in the aftermath of World War III "

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 11th, 2013, 11:24 PM

Might as well cover and finish this. Here's what I have on the MT-LB. The refs I have pretty much show the Russians operated with the following versions noted below. What I strongly suspect is one of the following to be true...
1) Projects unfulfilled have crept into the OOB-again. OR...

2) We have if you will some OOB to OOB "cross contamination". The Czechs and Bulgarians were prolific with their MT-LB modifications for instance.

So again for the Russians I come up pretty much with the following combat types...
1. MT-LB - BASE MODEL.
2. MT-LBU - LONGER BODY WITH BIGGER ENGINE.
3. MT-LBV - WIDER TRACKS FOR WINTER AND SOFT TERRIAN OPS I.E. SWAMPS ETC.
4. 2S1 GOOSDIKA - 122mm SPA
5. AZM - CEV
6. UR-TI - MCV

That's about it. Wasn't "shouting above, if you ever saw me typing you'd understand. Refs are below all good some used as quick checks only and one is a good Soviet/Russian one I've used in the past and might be of some use for any lingering BMP issues etc. So for perspective as I've been asked by some in the past the refs will descend from first look medium+ confidence to higher confidence+ and finally lower confidence/quick check sources since I have the time here to do that.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/mtlb.htm
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s1_gvosdika.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/MT-LB.html
REFS AT BOTTOM.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0534/lsn2.htm
NEAR BOTTOM.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mt-lb.htm
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Armored_Combat_Vehicles/Armor_Combat_Vehicles.htm#mt-lb
SCROLL TO TOP FOR OTHERS.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mt-lb.htm

With the arms control site be sure to carefully read it. The description will start and a few words in they'll note what country it's from if not Russian.

NOTE: Many "top tier" refs will tend not to offer info on older types of equipment for many reasons I can list but won't. When you find them keep or better yet post them as the topic requires.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 11th, 2013, 11:44 PM

To "clear the deck" of the BMP refs I had. NOTE the first ref on the BMP-T fielded in 2005. This French site has been very good to me over the long haul.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmpt_bmp-t_tank_support_infantry_fighting_combat_armoured_v ehicle_technical_data_sheet_information_u.html[/url]
http://www.janes.com/article/23350/russia-develops-additional-bmp-3-variants
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmp-2_ifv_tracked_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_d ata_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
http://kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp2u/
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1698.html

I think I'll enjoy the rest of my day off, have a good night.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 12th, 2013, 01:01 AM

Thanks Pat. Got your other PM's and email BTW. Thanks for helping to look into this. I will cull the project MT-LB's

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 12th, 2013, 02:11 AM

Alright first call me superstitious but Don you have a new "Thanked" number I didn't like the 665+1 thing :fire: :mean:!

And before someone says something...one more Top Tier one for the BMP-T.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmpt-vehicle/

And finally from the same ref on the BMP-3 and more updated source. In the Russian OOB the two issues are do you want to add and I only recommend ONE OF EACH if so, the improved BMP-3M with the SAGEM FCS/TI and BMP-3F (3F). Both are addressed in the below ref. Basically the SAGEM (French system.) makes this a very recent upgrade within the last 2-4 years. Also the 3F entered service in 2011 and has ethier been bought by Malay or Indo ~ a year ago as well. Would think since they are new builds (3F) they to would have the SAGEM system as well plus it was designed as a faster longer endurance (At least 7 hrs.) amphib.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/

I'M DONE! PROMISE...MAYBE!?!

Back to work tomorrow so good night.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 12th, 2013, 11:12 AM

The first time I tried that last link I got a 404 error. Every time after that the screen stayed blank

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 12th, 2013, 01:00 PM

Don,
Tried the same no luck. Went to the main site via favorites different page (Redirecting me to other options.) came up with same result-no info. Randomly chacked other "projects" and they came up. Normally this means they might be updating info for in this case the BMP-3. This is normal and that's how I normally "idiot check" the site to be sure. Give it a day or two.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 13th, 2013, 03:23 AM

From the post, just checked the BMP-3 link twice 20m apart. Seems to be back up.
Bonus ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmp-3_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_technical_dat a_sheet_specifications_informations_uk.html

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 13th, 2013, 09:56 AM

OK, thanks. We don't have the BMMP. I'll look into that ( typically, more complications other sites call that the BMP-3F )

Ah, figured it out..... the BMMP has the BMP-2 turret and the 3F uses the standard BMP-3 turret but it's not clear if this actually made it to troops. The phrasing " has been developed" seems to suggest not as yet

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 13th, 2013, 01:56 PM

Don,
BMP-3F...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmp-3f_amphibious_tracked_armoured_infantry_fighting_v ehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications.html
Note: Country Users and Crew and Carry numbers at bottom.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_3.htm
Note: Varients Section.
http://www.allmilitaryweapons.com/2010/08/bmp-3.html
Note: Varients Section.

Pic:
12704

They (Refs) also clear my memory from an earlier post, it was Indonesia and not Maylasia that got the BMP-3F.
Will try get dates before edit time expires here if not by tomorrow. Have to work.

Regards,
Pat

Indonesia...Would use 1/11. delivered end of 11/10.
http://www.jakartaupdates.com/685-17-bmp-3f-russian-tanks-for-indonesian-navy-for-usd-50-million
http://www.allmilitaryweapons.com/2010/12/russia-delivered-17-bmp-3f-to.html?m=1
http://www.janes.com/article/23350/russia-develops-additional-bmp-3-variants
This JANES's Ref contradicts the other sources on Russian use. But verifies the type is new and Indonesia apparently is the only user. They did recieve the further units noted here as well. If it's JANE's I'd almost would tend to hold off on Russian use though it's 1 against 4 or 5.

DRG

November 13th, 2013, 03:52 PM

It's Indonesia and I will be changing the Icon , the photo ( I'll use the one you provided ) and the armour stats for that

I will hold off putting the 3F in the Russian OOB

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 14th, 2013, 04:53 AM

Don,
I fully agree. We know where to get it if we need it and we might in about two years (See ref 2 below.), as Indonesia is good. The refs below will show why the Russians held off on the BMP-3F and possibly caused some "confusion" for some of the ref sites. Blame it on the KURGANETS-25 program.

For everyone else why did I "change" my input when I read the JANE's ref (Reposted below.) over what are truely top tier refs? Well first a couple were noncommital. It's one thing to say they have them vs. having them, I.E. Origin vs. Using them or Built in vs. Fielding (Operating.) them etc. But more importantly it's JANE's. I will leave it for you this way for reasons some will understand, +12yrs/4 Submarines and 7yrs (Two seprerate tours.) Submarine Group/Atlantic Fleet Alt HQ Ops Staff and a brand new very expensive JANE's... All the Worlds Naval ED. every year at all of them or, for you Poker players 4 Aces and 1 King of Spades to cap it off your hand, it's that good.
And you wonder why I asked John (IMP) a few years ago to run my JANE's fund raising campaign!?! ;)

It's why I keep looking.
http://www.janes.com/article/23350/russia-develops-additional-bmp-3-variants
http://rusnavy.com/news/newsofday/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=16068
Third Para.
http://www.armarbg.com/news/Russia-Plans-to-Field-the-T-99/24
Last Para.

Thanks again Don!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 14th, 2013, 09:43 AM

Thanks Pat. Yes if Janes says they have it or don't I'll take that as gospel

...........and on that note on the front page of the Janes website I find

The first Indonesian Marder 1A3 IFVs take part in Armed Forces Day celebrations on 5 October. Source: Rheinmetall
I guess I'm adding Marders to the Indonesian OOB today......
....and I'll push the start date back for the Leo 2s as they are not actually in service yet. They only have two of each for parades

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 15th, 2013, 03:56 AM

Don,
Been tracking the Marders myself and was on my work list but as we discussed and for those reasons it might've had to wait until next year. But as with the LEO issue from last year with (2A6 vs 2A4.) this it's MARDER 1A2 vs. 1A3. I really appreciate you getting out front on this so let me give you all I had on the INDO MARDER deal. I'm sure others might apreciate "the process" involved for equipment submissions to include the timeframe to develop your sources and types.
Hopefully in order of unit data and oldest report at top...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/marder_1a2_armoured_infantry_fighting_vehicle_tech nical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.htm l
Brought it up when the last ref below was posted.

NEWS...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2011_army_military_defence_news_uk/indonesian_army_to_purchase_american_helicopter_ah-64_and_german_leopard_main_battle_tanks_1612112.ht ml
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/09/13/indonesia-purchase-more-tanks-germany.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4229:indonesia-army-requests-ex-german-marders-ifv-too&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/indonesia_ready_to_purchase_50_marder_1a3_armoured _infantry_fighting_vehicle_from_germany_1809124.ht ml
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6586:indonesia-german-leopards-order-confirmed&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
Note in the above MARDER 1A2 mentioned in this newest post.

This was taken from 5/21/2013 Post #257 MBT Thread. It backed up my decision when submitted to go for the LEO 2A6 earlier in the year. Also though here to the MARDER 1A2 came up. And I believe ref 3 below indicated 15 LEO's would be delivered by 10/2012. This is why with all of the above info and below, sometimes you have to make a decision and keep your fingers crossed. All you can do is follow up constantly. But they say a little PITA is good for you once in awhile!?! Anyway...

"3. Well in this case the calculus paid off, Indonesia is getting the LEO 2A6. I had held off in submitting it sooner as there were many reports at the time that it might be the LEO 2A4 with the REVOLUATION Kits (Making them similar in looks and attributes to Singapores and Turkeys (Added last year.) upgraded LEOs). This was one of the few sites to report it as LEO 2A6 tank from the start as indicated in the first ref. In an earlier commentary I felt that Indonesia after losing the Dutch LEO deal wouldn't take a couple of steps back for 2A4s, when the Dutch tanks were 2A6 marks. The last ones show the order was increased to 163 tanks. The MARDER I'll address separately elsewhere.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...a_1007125.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...2_0307121.html
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...anks-indonesia
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
FOLLOW UP."

Might not have been a useless excercise for some. I like the last ref because they get ahead of some of the more established sources in the defence industry. I'd be curious what data SIPRI has but I'm tired so good night.
MARDER 1A3 I believe is the right choice here as well.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2013, 12:32 AM

Well a week or two ago I posted Army Techs list of Top Ten MBT's now I guess it's the APC's turn. I guess my only surprize here was the BTR-4, other then that I feel they got it right. I would hope there will be no confusion between the APC and IFV categories. Here's the list enjoy...
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-best-armoured-personnel-carriers-4142101/

Well as I was exiting out to get ready to do some more work on the next Patch Post I came across the following K21 UPDATE. Like a couple of other sites I use, when they feature a piece of equipment something has been updated which requires a look. So unless I missed something else the news here is in the Sensor section basically identification of a target at 3000m with a 6000m detection range. In my book that means the the K21 now can join the TI/GSR 50 club that has the BRADLEY, BTR-82A (Already in last year.) with the CENTUARO and now K21 (These two will not require new units to be added.) to be changed. The clock ticks so here's the update...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k21-fighting-vehicle/

I think I'll have to avoid my sites until I can get the next input done they make more work for me!?!
:capt:

Regards,
Pat

Imp

December 18th, 2013, 03:18 AM

From the APC list you would have thought they could have put a better engine in the Stryker. I am guessing its sightly underpowered, slowest & worst range. Otherwise the drive train or suspension are not quite cutting the mustard.

sabresandy

December 18th, 2013, 11:56 AM

Speaking of the Stryker, does the newest (upcoming) version implement an autocannon version of its M2 Browning? As I understand it, all versions of the Stryker use a CROWS weapons mount instead of the pintle mount for its weapon, which is not reflected in the current version's AAA mount instead of autocannon mount.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 18th, 2013, 12:42 PM

I need to get ready for work soon so I'll leave you with some light reading to address the issues brought up here concerning the STRYKER.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120223/DEFREG02/302230001/AUSA-U-S-Army-Plans-Post-War-Management-Stryker-Fleet
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news1505_stryker.htm

Upgrade details more in the last ref.

Regards,
Pat

sabresandy

December 18th, 2013, 10:08 PM

I'm sorry to nitpick, and I'll try to clarify, but: none of those articles address the problem with the Stryker vehicles. They cover future upgraded versions, yes, and I'll be looking forward to those, assuming they get fielded.

The issue is with the basic version of the Stryker, OBAT 12 UNIT 335, and its GL-equipped variant, UNIT 351, plus the cage armor versions thereof, UNIT 680 and 681.

The MG-equipped versions, 335 and 680, are armed with WEAPON 55, the .50cal AAMG, which is a Class 4 (FLAK/AA) weapon. The issue I had in mind was that this should not be correct, since they use remote weapons stations instead of a pintle mount. They should be using Class 5, CMG/BMG, or even Class 19, AUTOCANNON, to reflect that fact.

The same applies to the grenade launcher variants, 351 and 681. Their weapon mountings are Class 3, Team Weapons, which is affected by buttoning; they should be in Class 5 or Class 19 (5 makes a little more sense since the grenade launcher isn't an anti-helicopter weapon except at very short ranges), again, to reflect the fact that RWSes are immune to buttoning.

Regardless, though, I'll be pretty excited to see the new Stryker variants with better armor, stabilization, thermal sights, possible Javelin integration, all that. But I would like to see the existing old Strykers to be corrected as well.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 19th, 2013, 03:20 AM

Weapons are more my thing, weapons classes are not per say though I guess that might be an oxymoron. Though I understand what you want, my ref A (Just the way I get when tired.) from my post did answer the weapon issue. I'll take it further from that with the below with pics.

1. Basic STYRKER all were from the beginning equipped with the PROTECTOR RWS using either the 50 cal. or 40mm GL.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm
12763

2. M1128 MGS has a 105mm with a turret mounted 50 cal. and 7.62mm gun. The pic shows the 50 cal. clearly.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/stryker_mgs.htm
12764

3. M1129 MORTAR Carrier has a roof mounted 7.62mm.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m1129_stryker_mortar.htm
12765

4. M1134 ATM TOW has a 7.62mm mounted by the commanders hatch. The USMC and USA versions will be around longer then the game allows for currently. Both are testing with newer weapons systems to include the ITAS TOW. That'll be an issue for next year.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m1134_stryker.htm
12766

So it would appear something might be amiss without doing an OOB check. ;)

Regards,
Pat

Airborne Rifles

December 19th, 2013, 11:32 AM

I just completed commanding two Stryker companies, one rifle and one hq. I can answer some general questions if there are any, such as which variants have RWS, if that works as a reference. I know the standards of evidence here are rigorous.

DRG

December 19th, 2013, 07:08 PM

I have made some minor adjustments to the weapons on the Stryker but is the evidence Pat posted in #159 any different than your practical experience ? Also.. is "KEM" a dead project ?

Don

Airborne Rifles

December 19th, 2013, 11:25 PM

None of the links really discussed the capabilities of the RWS. It's a very precise system with high magnification, TI, night vision, etc. We employ it in many ways like a sniper since you can fire single rounds and reach out to 2km with accuracy. The info about which variants carry it is correct. Surprisingly, the recon variant does not currently carry an RWS.

As far as KEM, I assume you mean kenetic energy munitions? I haven't seen anything about it to be honest.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 20th, 2013, 03:59 AM

Maybe I'll listen to John...John tell to please stop looking in on these posts so I can get the tank items finished!!! Never mind CINCLANTHOME has been trying for years and it ain't worked yet!?! :shock: Well I have to do my part for the CORPS...
First the STRYKER...
Is equipped with the Kongsberg M153 PROTECTOR RWS which is derived from the M151 PROTECTOR RWS used most notably by the CADF.
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/products/remoteweaponstation/protectorcrows/
http://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KPS/Datasheets/Dataark_crows_sep%202010-A4.ashx
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/WednesdaySI12257Eagleson.pdf
JANE's might have some better gun data for ROF etc. but I'm moving on to...

The LAV-AT...
This made my list because the game data and references out there just didn't make sense. You're running around with yes, improved but older tanks and somebody wants to take away your light armored tank killer too!?! Well that's because you're running around yeah, unimproved weapons equipment on your improved LAV-ATA2 platform. I know Suhiir it's a bitter pill to swallow but there is light (Or Refs) at the end of the tunnel here.

Now to be serious (:clap:)...
John pointed out some issues with the LAV-25 platform above and along with the STRYKER with the lessons learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan improvements have been made along similar lines. For the LAV-25 this would lead to the LAV-25A2 which is in the field now. The confusion with the LAV-AT is that it's thought the platform/concept was going away completely in 2014, in a sense it is but not however until the the LAV-ATA2 comes online. The whole LAV-25 and STRYKER are on a parallel track. Improvements will keep both in the the field until 2025 with contingency plans until 2035 based on funding for ongoing projects for both services I've reporting on for awhile. So yes Don I hear you...the issues with the LAV-AT is that the EMERSON Launcher System is no longer supported to include parts etc. (And I believe the company itself is either out of the defense industry or no longer in business.) also the ARMY no longer supports the TOW used with the system. Currently live fire tests as recently as this past Oct/Nov have gone well for the LAV-ATA2. The LAV-ATA2 is using the USA ITAS and latest TOW with operational testing to be completed in 2014 (Look to Fall.) and should be in the field by 2015 early. I'll be tracking developments. Game wise I see improved LAV-25A2 and LAV-ATA2 platforms and weapons capabilities being added. Yeah I know...slots slots and more slots. I can tell you also with ITAS we're talking TI/GSR 50 also for the LAV-ATA2 and STRYKER-AT. Refs below are oldest first to show program development to develop the timeline we need. Make no mistake here for the LAV-AT/LAV-ATA2 the launcher and TOW issues fall under the USA TACOM just to be clear this is a joint services op.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/lav_at.htm
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=38b6bfb695e4b835a2e5485e96ff1602&tab=core&_cview=1
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010MCSC/WednesdayBucklesforLusardi.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/LAV-AT-Modernizing-the-USMCs-Wheeled-Tank-Killers-07373/
http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/News/PressReleaseArticleDisplay/tabid/8007/Article/139423/marine-corps-lav-upgrade-program-beneficiary-of-available-army-stryker-assets.aspx
http://defense-update.com/20131027_enhanced-lav-at.html
http://www.janes.com/article/29232/enhanced-lav-at-undertakes-test-firing?from_rss=1
Why people don't use this site I'll never it fiqure out, anyway... a Bonus site...
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/tanks/tanks-k-l/25702/view/lav-at/

I gotta work later today so good night and have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat

CRAP! Forgot about KEM better known as LOSAT (Line Of Sight Anti Tank Weapon) the clock ticks so KEM cancelled in 2004. USA revived the program as improved CKEM apparently cancelled in 2008. No data after successful final test flight in 2007.
http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2005/12/Documents/SA_1205.pdf
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/CKEM_a000979001.aspx

Hey Airbornerifles don't be shy around here!?!
Time to hit the rack!!

DRG

December 20th, 2013, 11:28 AM

There are a (large ) number of changes being made to the USMC OOB ( again ) this time around. The LAV-ATA2 and an upgraded M1134 ATGMV for the US OOB have been set up for TI/GSR 50 starting 1/115........... that will no doubt change again next year. I have removed the KEM units and weapon from the US OOB

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 20th, 2013, 01:25 PM

Don sorry for the extra work, another excercise in having to clean up an OOB of future weapons and platforms that died on the vine, it just really chaffs my ___ as it takes away from the work at hand! YEAH I HEAR YOU, ENOUGH SAID ON THAT ISSUE. Besides who am I to complain!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 12th, 2015, 04:27 PM

Most of this is by way of my WORKLIST and to an extent updates you might not be aware of...

NORWAY/ADD...has been planning these upgrades for sometime now but finally got the funding to start the project in the last 2/3 years. Still trying to piece some of this together for the armor improvement thinking is 10-15% all around but not sure.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbae-delivers-cv90-multicarrier-vehicle-to-norwegian-army-4461121
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/true-norsk-cv90-armored-modernization-07439/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/bae_systems_introduces_its_new_cv90_sting_to_norwe gian_army.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/bae_systems_delivers_new_cv90_multic_multipurpose_ armored_vehicle_to_norwegian_armed_forces.html

NETHERLANDS/MOD... EW issue for their CV90/35 UNITS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/saab_wins_leds-50_mk2_launch_order.html

CZECHOSLOVAKIA/ADD... I didn't see this in the OOB while looking into another matter. If I missed it I'm sure I'll hear about it. ;)
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/tatra_t815_sot.htm

FRANCE/TRACK... The DGA has certified the new VBCI-32 which is an improved version of the VBCI. The improvements were brought about from lessons learned in Africa.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/vbci-frances-wheeled-apc-04100/

BULGARIA/ADD... To get TEXTRON's COMMANDO SELECT vehicles.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbulgarian-military-orders-commando-select-vehicles-from-textron-4404443

LEBANON/ADD... France to help Lebanese better protect themselves against threats posed by groups such as ISIS. The VBC-90 is the concern here however, other systems are involved as noted in the article.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/lebanese_armed_forces_to_purchase_french_vbc_90_ar moured_and_caesar_155mm_howitzers_2510142.html

DENMARK/TRACK... Life is better or maybe Russian stirring things up, is making people nervous again.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/ministry_of_defence_from_denmark_has_received_fina l_offers_to_replace_its_fleet_of_m113_armoured_121 .html
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141208/DEFREG/312080007/Companies-Submit-Final-Proposals-Denmark-Armored-Vehicles

FRANCE/TRACK... In line with the UK's FRES Program, France has kicked off the SCORPION Program.
http://www.janes.com/article/46852/update-france-kicks-off-scorpion-vehicle-programmes
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-scorpion-land-vehicles-028975/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/french_defence_minister_unveils_future_griffon_and _jaguar_armoured_vehicles_for_french_army_0612141. html

FRANCE/ADD... As I was working down my bookmarks I guess I had already saved the VAB-HOT. C2/P2, HOT 4 ready/8 reload, TI/GSR 45 (System info indicates 2500m/or 50hexes) your call.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/france_french_army_vehicle_missile_systems_uk/vab_hot_mephisto_anti-tank_missile_launcher_4x4_armored_vehicle_technica l_data_sheet_specifications_.html

Well that should do it on current issues I have more in the previous page or two as well I believe.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 13th, 2015, 04:02 AM

FYI The newest USMC OOB will have:

01/82-06/87 LAV-AT - Vision=30, BGM-71D
07/87-06/92 LAV-AT - Vision=40, BGM-71E
07/92-09/01 LAV-AT - Vision=40, BGM-71F
10/01-12/14 LAV-ATA1 - Vision=45, BGM-71F (now has "cherry picker")
01/15-12/20 LAV-ATA2 - Vision=50, BGM-71F ("cherry picker")

Not that the "cherry picker" is modeled/handled by the game code BUT the LBM and Icons change.

shahadi

January 13th, 2015, 04:25 AM

We still need a truly modeled IFV/AFV. The APC model is fine for a troop taxi into battle, but we need a vehicle to carry troops into battle then stay in support with Oportunity and Reaction Fires at ranges near 1km against non-vehicle targets.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 13th, 2015, 09:41 PM

We can all dream but, I don't think the CORPS has any plans for that in a true IFV concept from what I've been posting. Still in the "beachhead mode of thinking" I guess but, I do agree with you on that 100% the CORPS needs it.
To the ATA1/ATA2 I thought Don and I got those in a couple of years ago (Or last year?) when he initiated things concerning the USA KEM Program. You know I do my PITA best to support the CORPS (And it kills me at times!?! ;)) but, did I miss something here? No answer required as I've given mine to you already but, did I miss something here!?! :rolleyes: That's why I get along with them so well on the base-because I like them (You to just you're a little wiser than they are!?!). Now would be a good time go "SHALLOW-SHALLOW-GOING-DEEP-DEEP-OVER." :cool:

Program Alert: If you can watch or get to PBS.org FRONTLINE is doing a story called "Putin's Way" @10pm EST. Wouldn't do this normally as you know but they are really good at those type of stories and it might provide some insights to the man.

Gotta Rig for Deep Submergence!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 13th, 2015, 10:34 PM

The whole point of the Corps is a mobile reaction force. Why everything possible is air transportable by MV-22/CH-53/C-130s and standard assault transport shipping (vice cargo ships).

If you put enough armor on an APC to make it a "true" IFV it' s no longer easily transportable.
Same reason the USMC uses lots of helos and jump jets, no need to capture/build a full air base, any flat piece of ground will do.

A USMC MEU (an autonomous combat unit from battalion to division size) has enough supplies in it's logistics element for 90 days of operations (in theory). After that the US Army is suppose to have gotten there to take over operations.
The USMC is not intended or equipped for sustained heavy combat, that's what the US Army is for.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2015, 03:17 AM

I agree with you totally on your last post however, given the op-tempo of the last decade it kind of makes you wonder who's augmenting whom. Again not disagreeing with you but it would make you think the USMC might want to reconsider a "strike force" option after all that's the reason they kept the LAV-AD around longer then they wanted because they stripped them of their missiles and used the launchers to carry extra DPU rounds for direct ground support (You might remember the video I posted.). After all that's why the USAF has all those nice C-117s. But we have them because they are the best combat troops in the world at what they do and they have not only the past but current history to fall on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM
Note the hot expended shell casings being ejected in the video.

Anyway forgot one for the last post though I'm hesitate to post it as it involves Finland, well OK not really...
FINLAND/MOD XA-180/OCT 2015 should allow for enough numbers to be available as needed. When keys words such as "new external surfacing" are used that tells me a 10% gratis increase in armor protection is probably warranted. General ground performance should probably be looked at as well over the existing UNITS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/patria_handed_over_the_first_refurbished_and_upgra ded_xa-180_apc_to_the_finnish_defence_forces_.html

USA/BRADLEY/ALL TYPES/MAIN GUN CONSIDERATION...Well I work with a diverse group of folks from the military. We got to talking about the game which lead to the BRADLEY as he served in them in Korea and Iraq. Did we know the main gun is dual feed with an HE and AP belt of ammo? I believe each belt holds either 500 or 800 Rds (Will confirm later today when I go back to work.) with two more belts of each for reload, I believe the simplest fix is to balance equally both types of ammo available to the game units. I do not know if the game engine would (or does now) allow auto target ammo selection much as the gunner does in real life with the auto selector on the real gun. "Jake" did tell me anything less then an up armored HUMVEE type vehicle got the HE treatment and everything else got AP rounds including hardened defensive positions. Just curious, I had this conversation about three weeks ago.

Anyway Good Night-gotta hit it again starting tomorrow.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 14th, 2015, 10:25 AM

I believe the Bradley uses the same feed system as the LAV-25.
It uses 150 or 60 round belts.
Typically a LAV-25 carried a 150 round belt of HE AND a 60 round belt of API loaded (dual feed system after all) with another belt of each aboard for reload. For a total of 300 HE and 120 AP rounds carried.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2015, 01:15 PM

Just got a minute, but "Jake" was pretty clear on the point that the feed had both a separate HE and AP belt on the gun. I did ask about a combined HE/AP belt and he stood firm on the separate ammo belts as noted above and previously. Of course he noted both have "tracer" rounds interspersed as well on each belt.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 14th, 2015, 08:25 PM

That's what I said. Two belts, one of HE (150 rnds), one of AP (60 rnds).
As to tracers, the "standard" in 1-in-5.

shahadi

January 15th, 2015, 08:36 PM

The whole point of the Corps is a mobile reaction force. Why everything possible is air transportable by MV-22/CH-53/C-130s and standard assault transport shipping (vice cargo ships). The USMC is not intended or equipped for sustained heavy combat, that's what the US Army is for.

What were the rotation times in Afghanistan and Iraq for the two services: USA and USMC. It would seem both services required the same time in-country, if the Marines were deployed to forward areas such as Afghanistan, but was that so, or did the Marines hold to the customary six to nine month deployment?

Suhiir

January 16th, 2015, 01:22 AM

I did use the word "intended".

Ever since Korea (1950-1953) the USMC has been used in sustained operations. While of course they can (and do) do so regularly it's not their "intended" mission.

Some of this is due to the US Army's over emphasis on mechanized warfare. From about 1970 thru the early 2000's the US Army seems to have almost totally forgotten about the need for leg infantry. Everything but their Rangers, Airborne, and the 10th Mountain was so tied to vehicles (helos in the case of the Air Cav) that without them they were basically non functional.

The USMC has always maintained that while infantry may occasionally ride/fly somewhere it's primarily a foot mobile organization.

Then you get something like Afghanistan where much of the terrain is mountains there's no option but to keep the Marines around while the Army reinvents "leg infantry".

During Vietnam the length of an individuals deployment was mandated from Washington, thus was the same for everyone (more or less). As you recall in Somalia the Marines went in first, then left (pretty much) when the Army arrived. The need for large numbers of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan means that given the size of the US Military overall there's no choice but to keep Marines there indefinitely.

shahadi

January 16th, 2015, 01:54 AM

Mobility is often described as a force multiplier, in fact, so much so that it is doctrine. I think, either in the Air or on Land, soldiers and Marines will ride in something to the battle and the better for them too, as speed, agility, we're still talking mobility, will multiply on force effectiveness to identify, close, engage, and defeat the opposition. That is the mission of an infantry unit, be it light or heavy, Marine or Army.

Yes, and the Marines are light infantry, and admittedly so, but today, they ride, not walk. Since the early fights on the plains in the ole West, forts or what we call Patrol Bases today (PBs) are ubiquitous.

So, that and for other reasons, I argue for the IFV in our game to deliver Opfires and reaction fires at ranges of 1km. As the MBT becomes increasingly expensive and limited in MOUT operations, and as the thread of armor forces of equitable strengths ever engaging diminish, the need for an infantry fire suppression vehicle rises.

So, lets have a better modeled AFV/IFV in winspMBT. Here, here and what say you?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 16th, 2015, 04:16 AM

First...Suhiir sorry for misreading your post on the ammo issue for the LAV-25.

Second...The LAV-25/STRYKER issue is covered on Pgs. 16-17 of this Thread with plenty of references.

Third...Since this whole issue started going back to the pre-EFV stage I've been posting regularly on the topic of what the USMC is trying to do to replace the AAV for years now. The CORPS is addressing the support issue with the ACV/MPC Programs that have been on and off for the last couple of years now, similar to what the USA was going through with the GCV Program all again in this thread. To address this ongoing discussion and what the current and future role is for the USMC concerning it's mission in regards to amphibious operations etc., I leave you with the below ref which Mr. Feickert has been reporting to Congress on for the last few years now (Google it.). You will see AT, 30mm and 40mmGL RWS's discussed within among other issues and it's all current-06 January 2015 was the best I could do on short notice. I can probably also get the RFI & RPI data as well for initial contract requests and requirements but I had a LONG/DAMP/COLD/RAINY DAY ON post earlier tonight so I'll just go to bed good night! Enjoy the read as I have and have a wonderful day!
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

What the hexx! Here's to the LAV-25A2 RFI and Program which is all on track...
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=38b6bfb695e4b835a2e5485e96ff1602&tab=core&_cview=1
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 16th, 2015, 08:51 AM

It's not mobility that I was referring to earlier. It's being so closely tied to those vehicles you can't operate without them.

For instance, the US Army as a whole doesn't use 60 or 81mm mortars, they use vehicle mounted 120's ... no vehicles ... no mortars.
Same for artillery, it's almost all self propelled.
And I won't even get into the amount of ammo the Army uses with their suppression fire doctrine, without their vehicles they'd run out several times faster then Marines do.

Mobility hasn't been much of an issue since the late 1950's. In general USMC infantry is 1/3 LVT/AAVs, 1/3 helos, 1/3 trucks. And the helos in particular give us outstanding mobility. The US Army has one, count them one, Air Cav division, if it's not in the area then significant heloborne operations are not an option.

While the AAV is a poor substitute for a Bradley or even a BMP it's every bit as capable as a M113 or BTR (in fact somewhat more capable). But again the USMC isn't designed/intended for use in Central Europe. During the Cold War we were primarily slated for Norway, Greece, and Italy.

True actual battlefield mobility is reduced, since only a fool rides a truck or helo when being actively shot at. But on the other hand the USMC isn't tied to the road net nearly as much as the Army. Many's the time we've waded thru a swamp or crossed a mountain to attack from directions then Army KNEW no significant attack could come from when doing joint service training with the US Army.

####################

Yeah, amphibious warfare has been obsolete since the invention of the A-Bomb ... funny how many landing have been made since then by various nations worldwide. The Brits should have known retaking the Falklands was impossible ...

Airborne Rifles

January 16th, 2015, 10:53 AM

Suhiir, not to be difficult but much of your information regarding Army vs. USMC appears to incorrect. I'm an infantry officer in the Army and I know from personal experience as well as readily available public information that this is so.

The Marines are a light infantry force, high quality, I agree. But four of the army's ten divisions are also light infantry: the 10th Mountain, 25th Light, 82nd Airborne, and 101st. In addition, other divisions have fielded light infantry brigades including the 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions. Even the 1st Armored Division had a light infantry brigade for a while (that is in the process of disbanding right now with the move back to three brigades per division).

Additionally, every Army division has an aviation brigade that allows them to conduct large-scale airmobile operations. The 101st I believe has two aviation brigades so they can conduct a full brigade air assault, but it is not a capability unique to that division.

You are right that the heavy formations are very road-bound, but that's the nature of things with armored vehicles.

AN the army absolutely does use 60 and 81mm mortars. Every light infantry company has 60s, and light battalions have 81s in the mortar platoon. Additionally, Stryker companies and battalions also have dismounted 60s and 81s in addition to the vehicle mounted 120s.

Not disputing that the Marines are an excellent light infantry force with great history and esprit, but I'd put the soldiers from the 82nd, 101st, or 10th Mountain against them any day in any terrain.

And a final note, the USMC in these extended deployments always has to rely on Army logistics to sustain themselves because they don't have the institutional ability to do it themselves.

Suhiir

January 17th, 2015, 02:15 AM

I'll freely admit much of my information is probably outdated. I was on active service 1974-1994 and a LOT has changed since then, both in the USMC and the US Army, and I have NOT followed the changes in the US Army nearly as closely.

I don't recall there even were a 1st or 3rd Infantry or 25th Light or during the 80's, and the 101st is, if I'm not mistaken primarily an airmobile unit, thus while it fights as infantry it's a valuable overall asset (like the 82nd Airborne/parachute division) and not used lightly.
These units may well exist now, and I say GOOD, and apologize for my assumptions that the US Army of 2014 is the same one that existed in the 80's/90's.

Suhiir

January 17th, 2015, 06:04 PM

Clarification to the above:
The 1st and 3rd Infantry DID exist as formations during that period, but they were Mech Infantry not leg.

Airborne Rifles

January 18th, 2015, 02:59 PM

No need to apologize, and thank you for your service! It's something I love about this game and this forum, the commitment to realism and accuracy.

Think of the 82nd and 101st in similar terms to the USMC. they each have their specialized mission (parachute assaults and airmobile operations) that they conduct extra training for, but for otherwise they are just high-quality light infantry formations.

And you're correct, the light brigades in 1st and 3rd ID, and 1st AD were not implemented until the GWOT, though the Army had other light divisions in the 80's that have since been deactivated (7th ID, for example).

Suhiir

January 18th, 2015, 09:33 PM

Yeah I know the Army has long used the 82nd and 101st as light infantry. I'd sort of assumed it was because they were the only light infantry available not because they were intended to be used that way.
Learn something new every day.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2015, 02:30 PM

Well this next is to acknowledge "The Kings of Re-purposing" in this case dealing with old tank hulls. Of course this means the Russians and in this case the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have found out the hard way that their BMP-2's are not up to the task and have suffered heavy losses in APC and MBT's early in the conflict. Since then in the area of MBT's a better protected and capable version of the T-64 has been fielded (MBT Thread.) and now the push to field a heavy APC/IFV has been revitalized and will see the light of day now. Next is the main story followed by examples of what is "already in the can".
http://www.janes.com/article/47949/ukraine-restarting-t-64-based-ifv-development
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmpv_64.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_k_64.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_55.htm
http://morozovkmdb.com/

For the KMDB link click on the "Upgrade Packages for Vehicles...section just below the BTR-3U. Some of those upgrades have already been applied to the current Ukrainian military equipment.

TRACK/TRACK/TRACK

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 19th, 2015, 03:15 PM

Well, well this is interesting........ the stated effective firing range at night for a T-64 A and B is 600m, or in game terms.. 12 hexes. 1500 after modernization..... 30 hexes

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2015, 03:35 AM

Now you know why I've used this site (OPLOT/OPLOT-M) and have kept it but, the "boys" from Ukraine I'm sure have contacts or use the site themselves. Any way I show the history tank section this might be of some general use especially dealing with pre and WWII tanks. The site is rich in data after all this plant has been making tanks for over 75 years. The cautionary note here is dealing with the upgrades available that the data fields are looked at completely so as not to miss items such as gun upgrades and protection benefits (With tested values.)of items such as ERA like NOZH etc. You have to remember they are in the business to make money and have been very successful in the export business in countries like Thailand and Iraq.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tanks/a-20.php?page=history5

I don't know where we're at with the Ukrainian tanks but the last one I submitted was the OPLOT-M and modifications to the OPLOT. So I suspect at least a couple of these will need to be submitted. Further I will move this post to it's home thread later just wanted to wrap this "chain of events" up here.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72ua1.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64e.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm
(JANE'S (And others.) has reported the two above as in service, there are reports of a T-64B2M as well FCS upgrades probably in line with the T-84 below. Also it seems the T-72UA1 MIGHT BE in service as well though they have better options in the field now.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm
(For reference to the previous ref above.)

A note on NOZH is that it has very similar characteristics of the same armor package used on the MERKAVA. It is in essence a further development of KONTACT-5 which Russia a couple of years ago (In MBT Thread.) accused the Ukraine of stealing. As noted it improves protection especially when used in conjunction with "conventional" ERA. Right now not many reports of Ukrainian T-72 or OPLOTs being used actively in the current crisis. Same for reports that the T-72BM3 is operating within the Ukraine sightings thus far have been confirmed as newer T-64 variants and possible older T-72 types. However the T-72BM3 has been confirmed on being seen inside the Russian border with the Ukraine. Again some of this is in the MBT Thread.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2015, 01:07 AM

Well this has long been "what if'd" , wish listed, do they or don't they etc. I can't do better than DID covered this topic from the start of their site. Again refs/additional readings are both highlighted in blue and certainly covered at the end of this article. USMC amphib "hopes and desires" with a dose of reality and a little "we're still waiting on a decision" is all rolled into this article covering 2001 to the present. This reading is not for the faint of heart it is long by even their standards.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated-02302/

It's as good as it gets no fuss no mess, I just wait a decision to do what I do. The only question I have for now is does our AAV-7 meet the current/coming improvement standards?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 22nd, 2015, 10:58 PM

Some folks just refuse to understand you can't make a fully amphibious MRV-IFV.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2015, 02:54 PM

Well an update of the correctly named (I was using the old designation.) ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 (We always did like our decimal points with our numbers in our military.) so from JANE'S and more for likely WinSPMBT 1.0...
http://www.janes.com/article/48255/usmc-prepares-for-amphibious-combat-vehicle-contest

I don't know what we'll all be doing over the next 20yrs., but if this plan holds up the USMC will be doing it (What ever "it" is!?! ;)) still with the AAV.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 26th, 2015, 03:07 PM

I just hope they put these thru the same "final testing" they did the LAV when it was adopted.
Basically they turned the three finalists over to a bunch of average Jarheads and gave them a month to play with them at 29 Palms. Reporting on what they liked, what they didn't, how often they broke, how badly, and how easy they were to fix.

luigim

February 5th, 2015, 12:32 PM

One question. Why only M3 Bradley BUSK and no M2 Bradley BUSK? Thank you.

Edit: Only a question, I really know the slot issue in USA OOB but I ask for interest.

luigim

February 7th, 2015, 01:32 PM

Hi. Exploring the Russia OOB i saw that two BTR-90 units are in there.

I think two more slots for Russian OOB..

Regards

Edit: in addiction to this, i saw in USA OOB EFOGM ATGM.

According to http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/

" The ACTD program concluded in September 1999. The US Army has no plans for further funding of the EFOGM program."

According to http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/MGM-157B-EFOGM_a000959001.aspx

"Up to 300 EFOGM missiles armed with a shaped charge warhead and 12 HMMWV-mounted launchers were procured by the US Army by late 1990s. The program is currently on hold and there are no further plans to keep going with this program"

So I think was only a testbed and not a really fielded unit.

One more free slot?

Suhiir

February 7th, 2015, 08:08 PM

DRG

February 7th, 2015, 08:40 PM

The BTR-90 is being used in limited quantities so will stay as a 93 code

There's no "309" in my OOB

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 8th, 2015, 02:49 AM

SOFTBALL #2 Item #3...

First to respond...
1. At the time the BRADLEY "BUSK" was submitted, the references I used basically put the priority on getting them (Urban Protection System.) installed on the A3. The A3 is pretty much doing most of the heavy lifting now from what I understand on the front lines. And as you mentioned the slot situation is beyond tight.
Though I'll take this opportunity too throw out my Plan B here (And I have my Steinke Hood handy when I get torpedoed!?!-;)) the UAE or as I like to call it the UAE/PITA some of the countries that make this up already have their own OOB's and trying to keep up with the equipment buys and upgrades etc., etc. I gave up even trying myself to do this maybe could we consider killing it and then dividing it up among the most slot restricted OOB's?

2. This might help concerning the EFOGM or not.
http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/6747/efogm.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/

3. The end of "Jake's Tale... As a refresher he primarily served in the BRADLEY A2 tracks as a gunner in Korea and saw combat in Iraq. His unit was one of the ones chosen to operationally field test the BRADLEY A3 BFIST. Not to rehash from the previous posts too much...again the auto-cannon is a dual feed ammo weapon that allows the gunner to select between the HE-FRAG and AP belts while engaging targets. In our discussions and based on them his/my concerns are as follows...
A. Are the game units using HE-FRAG rounds as this was the standard round used by all types to his knowledge.

B. It would make sense especially with the ROF of the BUSHMASTER to have either an equal (And preferable.) amount of both HE-FRAG and AP rounds or at minimum, increase the AP allotment over current game levels.

Those were the game issues discussed somewhere. ;) The last is some insight that would make sense to most of you out here...

C. As a point of interest he told me the loaded belts had between 72-75 (He couldn't remember which.) rounds each. They NEVER had less than 400 rounds each of HE-FRAG and AP onboard (This matches most refs that show they carried at least 900/or 1000 rounds total.) however, when going on a combat mission they routinely carried much more depending on the mission and threats expected to be encountered. An easy rule of thumb as a gunner he/they used was anything less then an up-armored HUMMER got HE-FRAG and above that standard AP.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m2_bradley.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 8th, 2015, 04:17 AM

Ran out of time to edit...
BTR-90...Had more but this from ref. 1/para 1 is from the manufacturer GAZ, "The vehicle was intended for the use of mechanized units of the Russian Army as well as marine units of the Russian Navy, as a vehicle for fire support, transportation of personnel, surveillance, reconnaissance, and patrolling tasks." and from para 1/ref.2 "A small number of these APCs are in service with Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs." we had a similar situation when I submitted the BPM-97 (And one of my very first submissions.) we then decided though in use with Border Guards we at the time could not connect it to the main stream military (The link can be made now as new information became available years later.) and we decided not to enter it. If you remember and those refs supported it, the BTR-90 situation is what drove the BTR-82 just over 3 years ago getting into the game when I submitted it. The BPM-97 and BTR-82 data is at the bottom of the refs.
http://www.gaz.vehiclemechanics.net/btr90/1
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_90.htm
http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-btr-90-8x8-wheeled-infantry-fighting-vehicle/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/btr-90.htm
http://armour.ws/btr-90-apc/
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_82.htm
(Tie in again in the first para to the BTR-90.)
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bpm_97.htm
(Original source as posted in the very beginning of the MRAP Thread I believe.)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bpm-97-apc/
(Updated source Paras 6/7.)
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bumerang.htm
(This last caused us a lot of aggravation as well because some thought this to be a revived BTR-90 around the time we worked through the BTR-82 some might find that process interesting, it is all in this Thread. This is on my list as well but it is slightly behind schedule at this time.)

I recommend taking out the BTR-90 and I'm personally holding off on the BPM-97 myself though on my submission list again due to some still "lingering fog" on the subject. I would rather the slot(s) be available for at least one or two of the Russian MRAPS I know they're getting/have in the Army just recently. Just my "2 cents" on this.
Only one more Softball left to go the F-35 and what a mess it is worldwide but I will offer a very simple solution.

Nice of my @*#^&+! mouse to cooperate with MozFox so far!?!

Regards,
Pat

shahadi

February 8th, 2015, 01:08 PM

DRG

February 8th, 2015, 01:44 PM

PvtJoker

February 8th, 2015, 09:36 PM

Ran out of time to edit...

I recommend taking out the BTR-90 and I'm personally holding off on the BPM-97 myself though on my submission list again due to some still "lingering fog" on the subject. I would rather the slot(s) be available for at least one or two of the Russian MRAPS I know they're getting/have in the Army just recently. Just my "2 cents" on this.

Regards,
Pat

I don't have time to look for more references you already provided, but I agree with you on the BTR-90. From what I have read it has not been accepted by the Russian Army and it appears that it's no longer even being considered. The Interior Ministry troops (VV, Vnutrenniye Voiska) are using the existing pre-production vehicles, but the numbers are very small, and there is no new production.

Additionally, it seems that the BTR-90 was never even intended to replace the BTR-80, since it's much too expensive for that. The Russian Army still has a huge number of BTR-70 vehicles, which have gas engines and need to be replaced with something relatively inexpensive.

shahadi

February 8th, 2015, 10:02 PM

Russian OOB (011):
Unit# 233 BTR-90 (-) 01/103-12/120, UC=121, VIRSS=1, Weapons 151, 64, 49
Unit# 309 <BTR-90B>Unused unit (no nation set) 01/114-12/120, UC=251, VIRSS=2, Weapon 151, 237, 64, 49

Apparently Unit#309 is a proposed upgrade of the BTR-90 that has not (as of yet) been implemented.

Ditto. This is what I see on my OOB11 - Russia as well.

------

THINK people....... I've had a year to modify the OOB's...... I pulled that unit months ago, that's why it's NOT IN MY OOB. My OOB's usually start changing within a week or two of a patch release. I figured by saying it wasn't in my OOB any longer that would indicate it's already been pulled

Honestly, I did not read that from your post... that you had pulled it already from your OOB. If it is a portend of a patch release, hooray!

Truly, as I do development work, where I get paid, I never do it in the production folders or on the production machines. So, yeah, although I am thinking, just was not on the same page as you. Now, I know and thanks for the heads-up, and the reminder.

------

DRG

February 9th, 2015, 08:07 AM

The BTR-90 is being used in small numbers by interior ministry troops and that number PROBABLY exceeds DOZENS of units entered in both games OOB's that nobody ever questions but I have given up fighting this BTR-90 issue and have pulled all the units from the game now.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 15th, 2015, 02:42 AM

As noted in the MBT Thread, Don and I have had some discussion about the "BOOMERANG" over the last 2>3 years now. Well from when I first came across this and brought it up I can finally say it exists. Again it sorta reminds me of the Patria AMV.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/new_russian_bumerang_8x8_armored_personnel_carrier _during_at_rehearsal_for_victory_day_parade.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/boomerang_btr_8x8_armored_vehicle_personnel_carrie r_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_ description_pictures_photos_images_video_intellige nc.html

The highlighted portions will link you to those pieces of equipment I mentioned in the MBT Thread.

Not mentioned is the fact that the Russian Paras are starting to take deliveries of 2 different types of APC/IFV's.

Regards,
Pat

Paulus_PAK

April 21st, 2015, 06:56 AM

Another Boomerang pic.
There're rumours, that Russians are preparing a fire support version of Boomerang with heavier weaponry.

Paulus_PAK

April 22nd, 2015, 01:12 PM

Big pictures of T-15 and Kurganets.
Looks like there are TWO types of APS on every vehicle... :eek:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 27th, 2015, 03:44 AM

Alright from the ref below, the following pieces of equipment have been "approved" to appear in the Russian Victory Day Parade. With the following exceptions the rest are on my tracking sheet for submission of which over 3/4 are or will be fielded this year. The exceptions are the GAZ, S-400, ICBM and the T-90A which I thought was a couple of years out yet. Obviously due to limits of the OOB at current levels I will need to prioritize these submissions. This collection on the whole (Less ICBM one.) I believe would fill out the Russian OOB.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/russia_army_unveils_all_the_combat_vehicles_for_th e_victory_day_military_parade_of_may_9_2015.html

I put this here as the ref is more APC/IFV heavy then in the other categories.

Regards,
Pat

Regards,
Pat

Paulus_PAK

May 4th, 2015, 02:09 PM

All new russian vehicles with turrets revealed. I think there is also an IFV Boomerang variant.

EpoletovSPR

May 4th, 2015, 05:06 PM

All new russian vehicles with turrets revealed. I think there is also an IFV Boomerang variant.

The information from the official website of the Ministry of Defence of Russia.

http://eng.mil.ru/en/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=21804@cmsPhotoGallery

Imp

May 5th, 2015, 08:26 AM

Welcome to the logistics nightmare

EpoletovSPR

May 5th, 2015, 09:43 AM

Conversely.
Platform Armata = Tank, Heavy APC
Platform Kurganets-25 = Tracked APC, IFV
Platform Bumerang = Wheeled APC

Minimum type, maximum variants.

In Russia varied landscape and need a variety of machines.

Show me a country in which there are no problems of logistics ?

Suhiir

May 5th, 2015, 01:34 PM

Show me a country in which there are no problems of logistics ?

Luxembourg?

scorpio_rocks

May 6th, 2015, 10:47 AM

Final rehersal on the streets of Moscow, including some repainted WWII stuff on BBC News site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32588868

MarkSheppard

May 6th, 2015, 05:23 PM

Better Top shot of the tank (for icon making)

MarkSheppard

May 6th, 2015, 05:24 PM

Top Shot of IFV

DRG

May 6th, 2015, 05:29 PM

LOVELY SHOTS---- I won't be able to do them justice until next year though..BELIEVE ME If I was healthy I'd be all over them:)

DON

MarkSheppard

May 6th, 2015, 05:34 PM

As much as I'd love to see the entire new family of Russian AFVs in SPMBT...

...I honestly don't think they will actually really enter service for quite some time. The GDP of Russia tracks very closely to the price of Oil on the global market; and the price/bbl has been depressed for quite some time.

DRG

May 7th, 2015, 09:07 AM

If anyone sees any additional top shots like this don't be shy about posting them --does anyone know if the armata will be using external fuel tank as was SOP in the past?

don

EpoletovSPR

May 7th, 2015, 09:46 AM

Livejournal photographer took these shots (see above):

http://a-andreich.livejournal.com/

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:05 PM

From the link that Epeletov posted; I pulled images and through google translate figured out which is which:

This post has

BTR MIC-7829 (Boomerang)

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:07 PM

This shot has Cornet-AM based armored car Tiger

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:09 PM

This post has BTR-MD Shell and Chrysanthemum C / (Khrizantema-S)

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:12 PM

This post contains Ural-63095 (Typhoon-U) -- Russia's answer to the Mine Resistant Vehicle (MRV / MRAP); proof from 14.5 mm armor-piercing bullets, up to 8 kg of explosives underneath.

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:16 PM

This post contains 2S35 Coalition-SV images.

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:18 PM

More 2S35 Coalition-SV images

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:19 PM

This post contains BMP Armata (object 149) images

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:22 PM

This post contains BMP Armata OBJ 149 top views

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:24 PM

This post contains Tank Armata (Obj 148) views

One of the photos is a photoshopped artists impression of what they think the Obj 148 unmanned turret looks like without external applique armor packs.

MarkSheppard

May 8th, 2015, 06:29 PM

OK, that's pretty much it for now.

Posted them here; because despite them being degraded from 10+MB JPEGs to 96 kb jpegs by the forum software; they'll still be here on shrapnel's servers and not lost to the internet if links change or go dead.

DRG

May 8th, 2015, 07:02 PM

This post contains Ural-63095 (Typhoon-U) -- Russia's answer to the Mine Resistant Vehicle (MRV / MRAP); proof from 14.5 mm armor-piercing bullets, up to 8 kg of explosives underneath.

just FYI --the Typhoon is in the game now

Stratos

May 10th, 2015, 07:46 AM

Will we see those new vehicles soon?

DRG

May 10th, 2015, 11:05 AM

Next year

Stratos

May 10th, 2015, 05:43 PM

Next year

Rgr.

DRG

May 10th, 2015, 05:58 PM

been figuring width and length based on the size of the drivers head:)..and calling that 8" but it doesn't quite match the LxW proportions seen in the top down photos

MarkSheppard

May 11th, 2015, 07:39 PM

Some more Armata pictures.

First is a comparison of T-14 Armata and T-90A shot from the same angle -- it clearly shows that the Armata is a different combat chassis from the T-72/T-90 family -- the road wheels also are different.

Plus, look at that glacis armor improvement over the T-90A!

Second is another artist's impression of what Armata might look without the applique armor -- they're getting better at drawing these as time goes on.

EpoletovSPR

May 11th, 2015, 11:17 PM

Video Armata comparison with UAZ Hunter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE

http://www.uaz.ru/en/cars/hunter#tx

Someone tried to calculate the size of the tank.
Orange inscription reads: distortion of the camera.

Source is now available.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/

Link found here, under this photo.
http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html

Paulus_PAK

May 12th, 2015, 01:16 PM

Looks like those new vehicles (Kurganets and maybe Boomerang) will not be manufactured for a quite some time. The KurganMash factory signed a contract with russian ministry of defense for production of hundreds of modernized BMP-3's. It will take few years (from 4 to 6 years) to complete this order. So no bigger scale production of Kurganets can be expected before 2020-2022.

luigim

July 24th, 2015, 02:11 AM

What about 30mm upgunned Strykers?

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 24th, 2015, 03:15 AM

They're coming I've been tracking this since March/April starting with ref. 1. The STRYKER is to mount a Konsberg 30mm HV cannon with a 7.62mm coax mg. I believe they'll also have an ATGW capability as well. This is currently intended for the 2nd CAV Regiment which at the time the first ref appeared, was our only armored unit left in Europe. That has now changed as an armored brigade I believe will be sent to Europe this fall. It is to include the M1A2 SEP V2 along with the STRYKER. And yes it's on my work list. Just a quick note again about the Russian new equipment, I think some of you will be surprised to see that they'll get some of this equipment sooner than later with a couple already assigned to active army units. The immediate issue is where to put in the OOB. But there's time anyway and remember we might not even have a patch for next year as it seems to me along with all these equipment issues, they're both a very "fluid situation" no intel just a feeling. Until "someone" tells me to "step it up" it's one day at a time.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/us_2nd_cavalry_regiment_wants_some_30mm_automatic_ cannon_on_its_8x8_stryker_armored_vehicles.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/u.s._approves_budget_to_upgrade_stryker_8x8_armour ed_with_30mm_cannon_remote_weapon_station_11006151 .html

TRACKING

Now if only my second bathroom project had gone as well as the first, I'm just feeling a little :cold: and :mad: right now.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

I'm not asleep at the helm yet so...

A taste of Russia...

http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/russian_armed_forces_will_receive_buk-m3_latest_generation_of_air_defense_missile_system .html
http://www.janes.com/article/49753/first-production-bmd-4ms-delivered-to-russian-airborne-forces
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/serial_production_of_russian_new_kurganets-25_bmp_combat_vehicles_may_start_in_2017_18051501. html

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 24th, 2015, 11:41 AM

This next compliments the previous post, this ref. is from today.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kurganets-25-object-695-infantry-fighting-vehicle/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 18th, 2016, 10:37 PM

Just bringing it home for my tracking and review from the SPA/SPAA Thread so this might not be new to you!!

From the USA PEO GCS office the AMPV is to start a 52 month (~4.3yrs.) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) process by BAE the contract winner. The EMD once completed will turnover 29 vehicles the Army for evaluation. This process should take about 2-3yrs. based on my tracking of these events as in reality we're dealing with a known, though moderately improved platform. Best guess tracking to somewhere out to 2022/2023. The ref. is dated 24 Dec. 2014. Very much falls in line with what Mark just posted as also one of my sources as you know and the others I'm holding in my APC folder.
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/news/ampv/ampv-2014-12-24-ampv-programs-emd-contract-awarded-bae.html
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/ampv.html (Covers models to be built on the bottom of 1st para.)

The home office...
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/index.html

ALSO...since we're at it...

The USMC will see their operational capability with the ACV 1.1 in 2020. This will prove a very hot competition between BAE and SAIC (TERREX 2 8x8) which are both fielding known fully amphibious platforms. It reports had given SAIC an early edge as the TERREX, first seen as a 6x6 platform was the first successful 360 situational awareness APC developed to include an RWS to operate in the same manner. TERREX 1 as it's now referred to was originally developed by TIMOTHY Industries of Ireland. And thought they just made good Beer and Whiskey!?! TERREX (1) was one of my first posts in the APC Thread where I'll re-post this to.
http://news.usni.org/2015/11/24/marine-corps-awards-amphibious-combat-vechicle-1-1-contracts-to-bae-systems-and-saic

I feel like I'm slowly coming back. I hear some of you already!?! :doh: (Used not for it's normal meaning! :p)

Need I say it-yeah, with an addition-CONTINUING TO TRACK.

Two for one not bad Don.

Regards,
Pat
:capt: