APC Development and related topics.

[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

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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

I added them for 9/117 as a compromise between the projected deployment date and the date the first test units were delivered. By next year that date will be firmed up and there will be formations pre-built using them but right now..they are have not been issued and any number of factors could change that but it does look like they will be deployed early next year

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You're right we should know something by time the next patch gets released in Mar/Apr of 2018. Your date works for me though the "swag" is a little more than what you and I normally use at max. 6 months. However as you pointed out there are those "factors" that always seem to come up and change things. All we can do is watch the "news" and of course the calendar. I ended up in the beginning of the thread and happened to look at Post #10 makes me wish things could be that easy again, all that did get in the game but, not long after things just seemed to get more "technical" I guess. Anyway I'll keep tracking this.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

They also seem to be fast tracking these things and I suspect ( we will see.... ) that they are going to be deployed ahead of schedule. I now have a "Hvy Cavalry Trp" and "Hvy Cavalry Pl" in the OOB that integrates them with infantry that can be adjusted as new info is released

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don when we entered the much improved M2A3 BRADLEY BUSK/BUSK III (The major improvement was it gave them a true "hunter killer" FCS system amongst others to include defensive one's.) and I have to check it against my submission posts also, but if not mistaken I don't believe we gave it artillery observation powers. Well unless we missed it we should've especially after you read the following as I just did. Still I don't recall seeing it at the time.

Here's the quote...
The Army Acquisition Support Center website says the M2A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle features upgrades across much of the on-board systems that "provide 'hunter-killer target handoff' capability." The M2A3 IFVs and their crews are also the "Eyes of the Artillery," the ASC website said. The on-board technology the 2-137th will be using "can acquire, identify, track and designate targets while mounted and under armor, enhancing crew survivability."

Here's the ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._10104171.html

ASC as referred to is the following...
http://www.aschq.army.mil/home/AboutUs.aspx

Units effected are...
USA-889/898&899 A note about UNIT 889 the TI/GSR should be 50 vice 40. All "BUSK" units at the time received the same upgrades.

The "rub" here reading the article indicates that now all the M2A3 BRADLEY's (Article makes no mention of "BUSK" units.)have the new FCS and "Eyes of the Artillery (ETA)" equipment now. This is a "no brainier" only in that the regular ARMY will generally be fitted out before the National Guard starts getting the upgrades. In taking that logical step that means probably within the last couple of years (Or more.) the process of upgrading the M2A3 had started and is either completely finished or a "sneeze away" from being finished.
Those M2A3 UNITS would be...
USA-306/666&668. These should only be improved and limited to the FCS (to include TI/GSR) and again the "ETA".

No out of service UNITS by date would make the "cut" to be improved.

All this for reading my, well for today, evening papers. I guess, I should STOP reading my "papers"?

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This further supports my last Post on the M2A3, though good sources, these next two should cover the rest "of the bases" from second to home plate.
Ref. 1 very first para addresses this very simply and Ref. 2 is directly from the USA. Ref. 3 in particular the section below the M1200 picture would confirm we're right on our 2012 fielding date for our "BUSK" M2A3's and also when the artillery and target painting laser was also available.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...21-71/appi.htm
https://www.army.mil/article/185239/..._at_fort_riley
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/f...pons4_1012.pdf

I should think this should cover it, if not, you know where to find me.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just got home from work around 11pm caught up on my news and a program than checked my in this case "paper" and found this, but, first I asked myself is this India? No it's the GAO the title actually says it all more then the sample article.
http://www.janes.com/article/69669/a...ecommend-delay

I don't have time now to dig further I need to get my "butt" to bed as I have my "fight course" in the morning. If no one else posts any further articles on the topic I'll see what I can come up with tomorrow late afternoon or evening.

Tonight I dream about the "Red Man"!?!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I always feel better after fighting the "Red Man" a couple of times in the heat of a SE Ga. day. Anyway I hit "pay-dirt" and if they abide by the delay the only USMC amphibious replacement program we're likely to see in the game will be the AVC 1.1 if you read the article it covers all the issues, if not, I'll be nice enough to tell just read the lower left section of this ref. and you'll see where I'm coming from.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684147.pdf

Note the GAO normally gets it's way where money is concerned.

For very recent background information, this is very good...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

Forgot to add...My MARINE friend out here was one of the very first to question the troop carrying capacity of these vehicles 10 vs standard 13 for a squad. I think she secretly works on the GAO Military Advisory Committee or MAC but not like "Hey Mac" - might get you a dirty look from her!?!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

This is where it gets "game interesting"

to quote the GAO ( emphasis mine )

The ACV SAR provides comparison costs for 204 ACVs and 204
AAVs, implying a one-for-one replacement of AAVs by ACVs, when in fact
comparatively more ACVs may be required because they are expected to carry
fewer marines. Specifically, the AAV can transport 17 marines, while the ACV
1.1 will carry a minimum of 10 marines or up to 13.

so...... that throws the carry cap for that vehicle as it's set up in the game now right out the window.....currently, the Hvy Ampib versions of the AAV we have in the game now has a carry cap of 23....... I guess that needs some adjustment..... I will let the resident Marine check her OOB for knock-off effects of making those the correct carry cap....I cannot imagine the GAO was wrong about how many they carry

but note the ACV CAN pack in 13 if necessary..just like the unit I set up in the game