.com.unity Forums - Expeditionary Fire Support System

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - Expeditionary Fire Support System (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=35605)

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

I don't have a problem with armoring some of the Hummers.
If they're going to be used as "Combat Patrol" vehicles I'd sure like them to be able to stop an AK round or fragments from the vehicle in front of you driving over an IED.
An the other hand there's no reason at all to armor utility and towing vehicles. They're trucks damn it not tanks.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Quote:

thatguy96 said:
Public outrage led to increased armor with little appreciation for the almost equally dangerous rollover problems it caused when driving the vehicle at high speed.

There may have been some noise about increased accident rates for up armored HMMWVs but frankly what do you prefer:
a slighty higher chance of a lethal accident, which can be mitigated by appropriate driver training, or being torn to shreds by the first IED you run into?
The increased armor has turned HMMWVs from a vehicle vulnerable to anything from small arms to explosives to one vulnerable only to well placed RPG shots (which can't be fired by nice safe remote control), big/lucky IEDs or EFPs, which are more resource intensive to make.
Note that up armor kits were improvised by soldiers in the field early on and of course bullets/fragments were the reasons APCs were developed in first place.
In a place like Iraq everything must be (and has been for the most part) armored to stop at least bullets/frag, including armored cabs for resupply trucks. This brings a lot of headaches (less payload, substantially more maintenance etc.) but is better than the alternative.
A specialized airborne vehicle has different requirements and lack of armor is an acceptable trade off but anything else designed now should be at least fitted for armor.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Just an update. The 2008 version of the last GAO report I cited has just come out. The Full-Rate Production Decision is planned for May (delayed from last year).

Some of the text:

Quote:

Other Program Issues

Operational testing revealed several safety, reliability, and performance issues. For example, there were safety concerns regarding instability with the ammunition trailer (which could cause harm to personnel riding in the rear seat). In addition, the EFSS vehicle could not carry the recommended combat load; the radiator was unable to sufficiently cool the engine and transmission during operations; the compressor was not robust enough to support the air ride system and central tire inflation system; and the vehicle had problems starting at higher altitudes. These issues led the operational testers to determine that EFSS was operationally effective with limitations and suitable with limitations. The testers characterize the EFSS as a �niche capability,� which must operate within a small performance envelope.

The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee requested that the Marine Corps delay the EFSS full-rate production decision that had been scheduled for September 2007. This decision is now planned for May 2008 and the program office is revising the test plan to support validation of the corrections required for the identified limitations.

Finally, the program office recently authorized additional limited production before reaching agreement on the scope and price of the work. Under this undefinitized contract action, the contactor is authorized to begin work before reaching a final agreement on contract terms. We have previously reported that these types of arrangements provide little incentive to the contractor to control cost until the terms of the work are finalized. The program office expected to reach agreement on the terms of work between the end of 2007 and January 2008.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Thanks for the update !

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Update :

For the "gun" of the system it's a 120 mm RT-F1 mortar (see MO 120 RT-F1 in the french OOB)
Range data are incorect in the OOB :

Normal range = 8170 m (160 hexe in game)and not 200+ hexe.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

I got 8200m (164 hexes) from my research into them.
On the other hand a RAP (rocket assisted projectile) round with a much greater range was also mentioned as being available for it. I don't recall ever hearing of a RAP mortar round before tho.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Quote:

Suhiir said:
I got the same range 8170m from my research into them, but wounded it to 164 hexes for the game.
On the other hand a RAP (rocket assisted projectile) round with a much greater range was also mentioned as being available for it. I don't recall ever hearing of a RAP mortar round before tho.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

Re :

2 solutions :

1) change the range from 208 to 160 or 164 (not a great difference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

2) add a new unit EFFS ER or MO 120 RT-F1 ER with the 13000 m (260 hexes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif) range. On the other hand you need to reduce the accuracy or ROF because the RAP ammo was not really accurate for arty standards used in french artillery. In 1992 the maximum error allowed was 1 m for 1km.

The ER mean Extended Range off course.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

In addition to the EFSS, do the Marines plan on equipping the LAV 81mm mortar with the 120mm mortar? I always heard that they were disappointed with the 81mm mortar since it was so light. Thanks

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System

PDF file about the 120 mm rocket assisted mortar ammunition

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/44fuze/rockets.pdf

on the left : 120 mm RT F1
on the right : EFSS ?