What happens when you have industry jump thru hoops to provide a product that is so evolutionary that it touches on being revolutionary.
What happens when a couple of those companies (Lockheed Martin-LAND SYSTEMS! and BAE-Iveco Defense) go above and beyond and provide vehicles that I'm told exceed standards, yet we still kill the program only to breath life into it a few months later?
Well, if I was part of BAE or LM I'd be a bit pissed (less LM than BAE).
The USMC has created a problem because of all the waffling with this project.
Design teams are disbanded, workers have been assigned to different projects and perhaps more importantly, the contractors don't necessarily believe that you're going to do what you say you're going to do.
Lets hope that industry is quick and nimble and able to get this done.
I wouldn't hold my breath though. Once bitten (and industry has been bitten) twice shy.
Does anyone have any experience with RWS 25mm cannons, such as what appears in the vehicle above. In my experience with the 25mm in a turret we often have problems with the chutes not feeding properly due to even minor damage, which even after the problem spot has been located, the problem itself can be difficult to identify. I have to wonder how an exposed feed system would hold up to dust and spray, not to mention larger debris such as branches which may get stuck in it during normal use. I am also not really a fan of the lack of protection for the weapon system, it seems a lot more vulnerable to small arms fire, let alone shrapnel from larger weapons. Is there any reason, beyond saving weight and money, to not at least provide some sort of armoured enclosure for the RWS system? Are the cost and weight savings enough to justify the increased vulnerability of the weapon system?
ReplyDeletegood point. the vehicle above is sporting what i call a first gen large caliber RWS. ELBIT has developed a version that is still an RWS but fully enclosed. Kongsberg has done the same and so has Rheinmetall.
Deletethe main advantage for these RWS systems on infantry carriers/armored personnel vehicles is that they don't take up room in the compartment so you can carry more troops without sacrificing firepower.
I have seen several of these newer turrets, especially here. But these first gen ones seem to persist. Do you think the exposed design will continue, or is it just too soon since the enclosed RWSs have come out for them to have transformed the landscape.
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of having more room for troops and kit, or better yet smaller vehicles without sacrificing anything. I do appreciate being in the turret with the weapon, though, for ease of reloading and clearing stoppages while in contact. As I mentioned previously, the guns I am familiar with seem stoppage-prone to me, or is it a recurring problem with other platforms and weapons systems of a similar type as well?