APC Development and related topics.

Mobhack · #1 June 9th, 2020, 10:15 AM

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

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

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

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #2 July 28th, 2020, 02:10 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway here's your ref...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...b-43d052efe123

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

AJAX: Don't normally like using "blogs" however I found this conversation interesting especially in that MOD awarded what would amount to normally be "follow on" contracts before they even had a PROTOTYPE. If true that's a real stupid move due to the risks involved that we now know have. MOD you get the

again if true-incredible!?!
https://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=107840
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27...n#.Xx_Kd1qSmUk

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

Regards,
Pat