APC Development and related topics.

[DRG]

If I missed it I apologize but how many Javalins reloads are carried?

[Suhiir]

If nothing else the 1st photo in this certainly settles any unit size issues for WinSPMBT.
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/22/mar...covery-testing

The article also discusses the upcoming ACV-1.2 (a more amphibious capable variant intended to replace the AAV).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

FYI: Looks like China wants to broaden it's influence in the weapons export market further with the VN-17 HAPC. From the angle of the picture accompany ref. 1, looks like a 20mm and note the ATGW launcher one to each side. And at 30 tons, it should be well protected. A comparison is being made to the VT-5 LMBT. More on the new APS in ref. 2.
http://www.janes.com/article/73248/c...tection-system

GL5 APS: 360 degree protection with sensor (4) covering a 90 degree arc.
http://www.janes.com/article/73227/n...trates-gl5-aps

As a note about my post (About 2/3 weeks back in the MBT Thread.) on Ukraine's ZASLON APS, JANE's has cleared this up in my mind now. Based on what was posted, ZASLON technically speaking, should be a better system regarding detection as if you might remember each sensor covered a min. arc of +155 degrees of arc thus providing overlapping detection. The plus here should be obvious in that a MBT/APC could lose two sensors and still be well protected.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well not that long ago I had a discussion in the MBT Thread I believe it was concerning the state of the Russian OOB and what I had on file just myself in dealing with soon to be and projected Russian equipment. Besides all the fairly new stuff like the T-14, T-15, BUMERANG etc. etc. now we can add the following below equipment to the ever increasing Russian OOB.

But before I do it is important to remember that the "newer" toys of the Russian Army will represent a much smaller part of the Army versus recapitalization of existing or if you resetting platforms much like the ABRAMS with the SEP modernization programs. Plain and simply it's a more cost effective solution especially when modernizing a large military force.

BTR-87:
http://www.janes.com/article/73305/a...ses-btr-87-apc

BMD-4M Airborne:
http://www.janes.com/article/73314/a...ernises-bmd-4m

China is in the act of doing the same (So are most major militaries.) this time a new variant of the VP-10 APC mounting a 105mm MG.
http://www.janes.com/article/73292/n...hicle-variants

The theme continues with the USA and consider this as an ongoing update. They hope to reach FOC by the Summer of 2018.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...d_1180817.html

Some stuff from the ARMY-2017 Exhibition just outside of Moscow. The photos might be of useful for our purposes in many ways.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army..._12308171.html
https://www.armyrecognition.com/army..._12208172.html

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Well not that long ago I had a discussion in the MBT Thread I believe it was concerning the state of the Russian OOB and what I had on file just myself in dealing with soon to be and projected Russian equipment. Besides all the fairly new stuff like the T-14, T-15, BUMERANG etc. etc. now we can add the following below equipment to the ever increasing Russian OOB.

But before I do it is important to remember that the "newer" toys of the Russian Army will represent a much smaller part of the Army versus recapitalization of existing or if you resetting platforms much like the ABRAMS with the SEP modernization programs. Plain and simply it's a more cost effective solution especially when modernizing a large military force.

BTR-87:
http://www.janes.com/article/73305/a...ses-btr-87-apc

From the perspective of the game there is little difference between the BTR-82 and the BTR-87. Based on the specs from

http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_82.htm

It has a marginally more powerful engine..12HP.... and a slight reduction in top speed.....90 kph vs 100 for the 82 ( but that's just one source......) it might have a bit more armour but that difference in power-speed might be " source distortion"......until there is further info I would be inclined to rename the 82 as BTR-82/87 but the 87 does show ATGM capability but that is not stated in the article

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

BMD-4M Airborne:
http://www.janes.com/article/73314/a...ernises-bmd-4m

already in the game

knowing what is up and coming is great but I am more interested in what was just delivered to the troops

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A couple of program updates...

Australia: After over a year now the ADF has declared that Phase 1 Testing in the LAND 400 program has been completed on time. This is where the ADF is evaluating the AMV 35 against the BOXER. I still feel "my gut" instinct has me thinking the BOXER will win this competition. Phase 2 decision will be made during the 1st half of 2018 when evaluation of the Phase 1 results should be completed.

You'll notice I'm using a new ref. for this story. I've been mirroring this site against my normal ones for several months now and am confident enough to start using it out here. I hope some of you might find it useful as well.
http://www.asdnews.com/news-71565/Te...(LAND_400).htm

USMC: The CORPS has ordered a low rate production of 21 AAV-SU tracks. They should be delivered sometime between JAN - APR 2018 for what amounts to them being put into a "reliability growth testing program" for as of yet an unspecified period of time. The CORPS up to this point, took it through an initial 1.5yr. testing program.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu..._83108172.html

Just a couple of quick ones, have a good day. Hoping IRMA doesn't ruin my mini vacation!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Looks like I need to change the introduction date for the AAV/SU to 1/118 vice 1/117.

Thanks sailor!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You might want to move that to the right about another year or so. The AAV-SU is just going into the next phase of the op eval is all. There are still concerns with the new systems added to an "old" hull design, in particular it seems there are concerns with the engines and drive trains on the hull. Also the unit assigned with these 21 units will be assigned the task of putting them through "real world" op eval and testing to identify any issues as noted etc. and offer recommendations for further improvements. This realistically will take another 9 - 18 months pushing possible FOC back to maybe JAN 2019 depending on what issues come up. Full rate production, I believe isn't scheduled to begin until 2023.

From ref. 1...
"A key area for the Marines to continue studying is the effect of the new systems, such as the engine and drive train, on the old hull. Leimbach said that, while everything fit into the vehicle, the new engine and other components may vibrate differently than the old one, for example; the AAVs were built to be reliable based on the legacy components, so the Marines will have to continue studying the effects of the new equipment to see what that means for reliability rates and maintenance procedures."
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/23/27689

From ref. 2 starting on Pg. 17, quote taken from Pg. 18...
"Milestone B in the spring of 2014 , and ten prototypes are currently undergoing developmental test and operational assessment. Milestone C is planned for the fourth quarter
of FY 2017 and IOC is planned for FY 2019. FOC is planned for FY 2023."
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS...A-20170524.pdf

From ref. 3 a well respected think tank...
The news here is as follows A) Addresses the issues from the above but, B) though off topic somewhat this caught my eye quote,
"The AV-8B Harrier, designed to take off from the LHA and LHD amphibious assault ships, will be retired from Marine Corps service in 2026. The AV-8B received near-term capability upgrades in 2015 that will continue in 2017 (Mine-This will need to be looked it.) in order to maintain its lethality and interoperability until the F-35 transition is complete."
http://index.heritage.org/military/2...-marine-corps/

Finally and this should "cap it off" from ref. 4...
A very good read on both the AAV-SU and ACV 1.1 current program status. On the AAV-SU in particular, it deals more deeply with some of the legacy issues the CORPS is concerned with in this next phase of the op eval. For instance the original pump for the water jets was one designed to handle sewage waste versus the new one that's purpose built for the job.

You (I) can see the potential issues that can arise from this against the hull from the equipment mounts, sound mounts will play a key role here in significantly reducing noise and vibration through the hull. For failed sound mounts can lead to failed and or degraded system operations and ultimately get you killed in the submarine world if someone is hunting you. They'll have to potentially access their sound mounts as well with the new equipment installed over the long term to determine from a mechanical point of view they can handle the new systems.

I can offer my expertise in this area as I was one of a handful onboard assigned as a "Sound Silencing Petty Officer" and let me tell you we have a bunch onboard!! Each one having to be inspected.
http://www.businessinsider.com/marin...siness+Insider)

From the surface NAVY side (The mission outcome is the same.) and for further reading if desired an over view of the "Sound Silencing" Program.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/doc.../NEWIS9_7.html

Not what my MARINE friend I think wants to hear.

As much as I like new equipment sometimes you have to be patient as a general rule.

Heading back to bed!!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Looks like I need to change the introduction date for the AAV/SU to 1/118 vice 1/117.

Thanks sailor!

Done

[redcoat2]

Taiwan is going to produce a IFV variant of the CM32 'Yunpao' armed with a 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II cannon:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/2...hicle-program/