* It looks like Lockheed/Patria are throwing down the gauntlet. Their Marine Personnel Carrier Variant is morphing into a family of vehicles right before our eyes. A birdy told me it did quite well (MRAP level of protection) in blast test and it swam well too...if they've worked on the swimming portion of the test even harder and made further modifications then my other favorite, the BAE SuperAV might get a run for its money in the "swim from ship to shore" category.
What land division lockheed? is just the company that sends out invoices ,they do not have any know how to offer on their own , that is the brilliance of US procurment ,everybody needs 'system integrator' which is just polite term for the guy paying off senators and getting paid for R&D that was never needed to start with or is done inhouse for the fraction of the cost by the guys who actually design and build the stuff (in this case Patria) .
ReplyDeleteWhy hellfire ,isn't it a bit impractical compared to Spike family of misiles
Because they wanted it to be different from the Israeli equivalent which mounts the Spike-ER.
DeleteConsider LM JLTV offering, is it in-house project or designed by a third party vendor like Havoc? LM has neither expertise nor heritage when comes to ground vehicle development. I won’t trust them.
ReplyDeleteUS military had a chance to adopt ground based HELLFIRE some thirty years ago during the heights of cold war build up. It didn't happen then, I highly doubt it will happen in the future. What we really need a fire and forget TOW round with extended range/lethality.
As far as MPC evolving from a simple troop carrier to a family of vehicles, I say let's go slow and get it right first. There is no hurry.
I agree 100%, defense industry has way to many parasites like LM that are only there to milk the taxpayer dry ,many of these projects would be far cheaper and ready sooner if the customer would allow foreign builder/developers to compete without the 'system integrator' and also consider an of the shelf gear instead of often wasteful R&D that in many cases swallows lots of $$ for no bang at all.
DeleteAs for LR TOW , TOW is an greatly outdated missile system ,again buy of the shelf no need to develop things that are already on the market like Spike ER or NLOS
New fuel developed by ATK results in a faster TOW with improved range.
DeleteNew range is beyond 7000m and flight time reduced by a third. They won't give exact range or speed for security reasons, but TOW will continue to be the main ATGM for the US for decades.
http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1666522&highlight=
We do need, however, a SPIKE NLOS or E-FOGM system that is part of the Arty battalion in a BCT because it is too good not to utilize.
It looks cool, is better than nothing, but as others have pointed out modern ATGMs have fairly decent range, what we are looking at here is BVRM ATGM artillery, it also kind of reminds me of 9M123_Khrizantema, except without the reloading ability.
ReplyDeleteWhat is better, a turret with a 40mm gun in it, capable of defeating all modern IFVs, and 2-4 smaller TOWs, or this? Leave heavy duty, atgm to actual tank destroyers with dozens of rounds!
40mm is overkill under most scenarios. Given limited ammo storage space inside IFV, you have to trade off capability vs. capacity. Sometimes more rounds of smaller caliber are more adequate than fewer rounds of large ammo. 30mm is the sweet spot.
ReplyDeleteBut 40 mm give you ability of programming ammo. That's the smallest caliber that can use intelligent detonators or different type of warheads If I remember that correctly.
DeleteLook I don't think 30mm is sufficient anymore to penetrate modern IFVs, which are bassically all being designed to be 30mm resistant, and many of which feature much larger calliber guns.
DeleteAs SHAS said 40mm is a good base-line size, there is a lot of good ammunition designed for it, most interesting would be to look at somethng like the CT40 made by CTA, the caseless rounds it fires are around the same size as the 30mm, but retain the lethality of a 40mm rounds.
So with the CT40mm you can retain the munition payload of a 30mm system, yet experience 40mm lethality, and the gun is comparable in size to a 30mm gun, I think that is a no brainer!
You could consider going even higher than this with this technology due to the size/weight reductions. But then it becomes more of an anti-vehicle/air-defence gun system than a counter-infantry weapon.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7961leslie.pdf
I always view the gun as infantry support weapon, not as a tank/IFV killer. Realistically speaking, I just don't see some days in the future large US armored formation slugging it out against a peer or near peer without outside intervention (i.e. air power). If lethality is being placed at premium, US Army would upgunned Bradley long ago. To me, protection and mobility have to be addressed first. Filling in a larger caliber weapon is actually much cheaper than the upgrades Bradley have received in the past: networking, fire control, situation awareness, etc. Why hasn’t it being done then, there is a reason behind it. It’s not cost effective. The benefit does not outweight the cost.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with that, by that logic the USA should scrap most of its military, and just maintain a small COIN force equipped with many thousands of MRAPs, because they are just going to be fighting insurgents, but I don't think we can know that for sure.
DeleteRegarding the 40mm cannon, in this case as I said, I think its pretty much a no-brainer, the munitions are almost exactly the same size as 30mm rounds, the cannon is around the size and (probably weight), the munitions are far superior, they have superior penetration, range and explosive filling characteristics, the ammunition is actually far better (i.e. air-blast) anyway because of its smart features, the only real downside is slightly more expensive rounds.
The lack of such advanced sensors, command and control systems, the poor armour, substandard gun callibers, lack of survivability features against modern threats like IEDs, all make a good reason for the USA to upgrade its IFVs, the problem is that the current IFVs were brought and designed to be airtransportable in C130 hercules, wheras something more modern like a patria AMV, with a turret on is probably going to need something more capable like an A400M.
So you can't just bolt more armour on, put larger turrets on the top, make a heavier vehicle, the entire stock of C130 would need to be replaced. I think this was a design mistake, to sacrifice fire power and survivability for air-freightability in a substandard tactical transport plane. They need to be able to fight when they get there, if you are just going to fight against insurgents then MRAPs are fine.
The Hellfire has been offered in the past as a potential option to replace the TOW on dedicated ATGM vehicles like the old M901 ITV. Considering that Lockheed is often working with the Hellfire it makes sense for them to offer it for what would be an ATGM carrier variant of the Patria/Havoc. I presume the other missile is the 2.75" laser guided DAGR.
ReplyDelete