Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/r...bmp-3-variants
http://rusnavy.com/news/newsofday/in...EMENT_ID=16068
Third Para.
http://www.armarbg.com/news/Russia-P...ld-the-T-99/24
Last Para.

Thanks again Don!

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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

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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/germa...res_video.html
Brought it up when the last ref below was posted.

NEWS...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1612112.html
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2...s-germany.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...y_1809124.html
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/featu...riers-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/proje...hting-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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/2...-Stryker-Fleet
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0...05_stryker.htm

Upgrade details more in the last ref.

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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
Attachment 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
Attachment 12764

3. M1129 MORTAR Carrier has a roof mounted 7.62mm.
http://www.military-today.com/artill...ker_mortar.htm
Attachment 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/missil...34_stryker.htm
Attachment 12766

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

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.