Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/prod...rotectorcrows/
http://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KPS...202010-A4.ashx
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallar...57Eagleson.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&m...=core&_cview=1
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010MCSC/We...forLusardi.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Killers-07373/
http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/...er-assets.aspx
http://defense-update.com/20131027_enhanced-lav-at.html
http://www.janes.com/article/29232/e...ing?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/bluepr...2/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/arm...ts/SA_1205.pdf
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Wea...000979001.aspx

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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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/...n-army-4461121
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ization-07439/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...gian_army.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...ed_forces.html

NETHERLANDS/MOD... EW issue for their CV90/35 UNITS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...nch_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/...led-apc-04100/

BULGARIA/ADD... To get TEXTRON's COMMANDO SELECT vehicles.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...extron-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/octob...s_2510142.html

DENMARK/TRACK... Life is better or maybe Russian stirring things up, is making people nervous again.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...oured_121.html
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...mored-Vehicles

FRANCE/TRACK... In line with the UK's FRES Program, France has kicked off the SCORPION Program.
http://www.janes.com/article/46852/u...cle-programmes
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...hicles-028975/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...y_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/franc...ications_.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:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

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.