APC Development and related topics.

[sabresandy]

I have a question on the new Stryker Dragoon and the way it's implemented in v11.

Namely, why was it hived off into an entirely new formation? From what I've read, the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS). Logically they'd fit better into the one-per-platoon Light Support APC category, as an option in place of the grenade launcher Strykers, and the as-of-yet-nonexistent Javelin Strykers as a regular APC option.

We can probably phase out the "M113A4 IFV" for that role. They're not in service in the US, are they?

[DRG]

It's in two formations and players can use them as they please. We still don't know for certain how they are to be integrated and when we do we will write a formation for them.

[sabresandy]

Oh. I didn't see the "Stryker Platoon +" formation. That does help, although manually assembling mechanized squads isn't going to be fun.

Incidentally, I went and did a bit of Googling, and found:
* Starting around 2007, Strykers should gain laser rangefinding and at least some stabilization. That was when the M151E2 Protector was introduced.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/12057/...ystems-stryker

* The M240 AAMG should be removed, unless it's meant to approximate a field mount or something similar?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by sabresandy

Oh. I didn't see the "Stryker Platoon +" formation. That does help, although manually assembling mechanized squads isn't going to be fun.

Well the problem is there is only sketchy info on how they are actually going to be used so I decided to get them in some kind of basic formation ( there are two ) and players can build how they like until better info is available as "the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" means there is an entirely new kind of Stryker I;m just learning about today

"intentions" isn't hard info....and as interesting as "Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" sounds it's totally new to me so maybe we need to give this a year to gather better info and in the meantime players can easily buy a basic Stryker coy and tack on a Dragoon Spt Sec

[sabresandy]

Here's the best source I can find on it, from Breaking Defense:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/a...30-mm-javelin/

"Upgunning the Europe-based Second Cavalry Regiment against the Russians is just the first of a “lethality upgrade” for the entire Stryker force. The 30mm quick-firing cannon for 2CR’s Strykers may ultimately go on half the Army’s fleet of the 8×8 armored vehicles (not counting specialist variants). The other half would get the a vehicular version of the Javelin, the military’s standard shoulder-fired anti-tank missile. Just as important, the Army wants to upgrade sights and sensors across the fleet — and it’s throwing the doors open to ideas from industry."

Any intent on adding Rangefinder 22/Stabilization, or removing the AAMG?
----

Other IFV news:

* Australia's LAND 400 program is proceeding apace, with the choices being a Boxer vehicle with the Puma's Lance turret (only with 35mm instead of 30mm), or a Patria AMV with 35mm.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016...?spt=sec&or=bn

* Canada's LAV 6.0 upgrade seems all but confirmed; I saw chatter about it last year. How this will show up in-game, I'm not sure...

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017...l&utm_medium=1

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You'll find the Posts concerning the LAV 6.0 on Pages 34 & 35 to include an email from the Canadian MOD to mine concerning it. Also posted on down select from Australia in here-that I've been tracking for years now as it kind've falls in line with the HAWKEI which I believe will finally be ready for the game next year. Ask Don or some of the "old hands" how many years I've been watching that one. THE MOST IMPORTANT issue beyond the pooling of information is the Patience to track this stuff for years at a time to monitor the evolution of a particular piece of equipment to the final choosen variant of it once accepted into service IF it makes it that far.

Back to vacation mode.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by sabresandy

Any intent on adding Rangefinder 22/Stabilization, or removing the AAMG?

I have added the rangefinder and Stabilization for next years OOB's but it had to be added from the start ( 2004 ) otherwise I have to add four additional units to an OOB with very few open slots left......so for 3 years they are slightly over capable. It's a fair compromise that I had to make

IDK where you see an AAMG....that's the second time you mentioned an AAMG..there are no AAMG's on any stryker...there is a "normal" MMG and I see no reason to remove it that doesn't create scenario issues for little benefit

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There is this "need" out here...forget it...This is what we really know...
1) All STRYKERS will get double "V" protected hulls which has been well underway for sometime now.

2) The USA will only currently upgrade 81 STRYKERS with the PROTECTOR MCT-30 turret.

3) From the USA and as it stands right now, well I'll just quote the ARMY here..."Fielding to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe will begin in May 2018, which represents "a near-record time from concept to delivery," according to Allyn." as taken from ref. 2. And yes ref. 1 covers the same as well.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...th-30mm-cannon
https://www.army.mil/article/177472

About the PROTECTOR MCT-30 CLICK on the data sheet to the right for further details if you want...
https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/pro...rotectormcrws/

There hasn't been any "real talk" about the JAVELIN version for about a year or so. However, this is what the USA plans are for that and more. Hopefully the "PROJECTED ACTIVITIES" section is still open as I copied over. If not click on it. Note the following...A) MCT-30 will mount a M240 coax. B) Turret picture as shown in articles above shows advanced optical systems TI/GSR 40. C) From FY 2020 (Oct 2019 for you non fiscal types.) on is when we can possibly think about the JAVELIN equipped STRYKER as part of the ECP-2/2a proposal. This will be the TI/GSR 50-60 version based on the data provided by the USA below concerning the use of TOW/ITAS targeting "structures" from those platforms.
http://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-it...y-of-vehicles/

I really like my sources, however, I have found many times over the years that the information provided goes directly back to whatever military direct source either MOD/DOD/Military Component. I can't say how many times I've posted those with my other references when submitting equipment out here. To put it "bluntly" and using a "modern metaphor" if it can be helped at all I refuse to be the one texting as I'm crossing the street and get hit by a car, fall in a man hole, trip into a fountain etc. etc. these things take time, they need to age like a good bottle of whiskey like my 12 year old Bushmills (You can only get it in Ireland.) that I don't plan to open until our 40th Anniversary in 9.5yrs.

Equipment is just like that. I've been guilty of over exuberance in the start of doing this work, the result, well that would be more work for Don and I. I'd rather at this point in the game see how much more Andy and Don can "squeeze" out of the software then have them fixing and deleting equipment the way we had to a few years back. That's no fun when you're trying to get new stuff in or modifying it which is easier then fixing it to draw the distinction between the two in this writing.

Sorry for venting and if I've offended anyone, my apologies. But sometimes "clarity of purpose" at least to my mind doesn't always come gift wrapped in the paper of your choosing.

Some pictures of something I've been following since 2012 late and to avoid confusion with the still in production earlier model, someone will figure it out and yes that's an armored cab...


Good Night!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Looks like the ACV 1.1 is official (if not yet accepted/deployed) as is a probable 1.2 (larger more amphibious capable variant) that is intended to replace the LVT/AAV.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...o-marine-corps
https://www.defensetech.org/2016/12/...-marine-corps/
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/s...ests-to-begin/

[DRG]

I guess we just have to wait and see how this develops