APC Development and related topics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yeah, you got ahead of me on that. I already knew for sometime about BADGER as well but, just didn't have the time to seek out more data on how bad that situation had gotten until I looked further looked into after I saw the same JANE's article myself.

Seems like mid 2022 to mid 2023 seems where the data shows some including these are where we've had to push some other equipment including tanks i.e. ALTAY, ARMATA etc., The impact of COVID-19 (Along with all the other normal issues in development of these programs.) is going to play havoc on Defense Budgets (Already has.) which is projected to have an impact on ours as well for the upcoming 2021 Fiscal Year.

All we can do is watch and see how far the "pendulum swings" on some of these programs over the next couple of years.

All I have on BADGER some contain interesting data on the MG making it unique. Also one of the refs. shows the configuration of the different turrets that will be fitted on the BADGER. I believe a couple of the prototypes are of the ATGW type.
By date order Oldest to Newest...
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...-africa/Badger
("According to Denel, the first battalion of 88 vehicles will be completed in 2019. The entire production order is set to be complete by 2022".)
http://www.military-today.com/apc/badger.htm
(Expected in 2019.)
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/feature...adger-vehicle/
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/feature...ombat-vehicle/
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...f-5abbf162ef0d

This next I came across during my BADGER search on the RATEL Program for those interested.
https://www.forecastinternational.co...fm?ARC_ID=1166

Well that at least let me clean out some files that aren't staring me in the face any longer!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Every time we try to get ahead of things it goes wrong somehow. The badger issue is deeper than just the IFV. We have an ATGM version, and APC version and an SP mortar version and they had all started 1//113 but the mortar and Missle variants show being turreted here.........

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...-africa/Badger

Which was not the info we had when it went in and all the armed variants are turreted including the Section variant APC

Variants
There are six variants of the Badger, of which five are armed, namely the Section variant (30 mm), Fire support variant (30 mm), Mortar variant (60 mm), Command variant (12.7 mm) and Missile variant (Ingwe). The Ambulance variant is not armed.

.....and the mortar version is not 120mm....it's a 60 mm DLS breech loader but it carries 256 bombs ( 255 is the largest number we can use but "close enough" ) you won't run out of ammo with one of those

wonderful........

I will push them all forward and adjust the formations and I doubt this will be the last time that happens

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Why Don and I enjoy OOB work so much...
Looking back at Post 493 above on the BADGER, Ref 1/6 variants, Ref 2/5 variants and Ref 4/9 variants.

Carry ranges from 6-10 troops (Though that ref did indicate it would be a tight fit @ 10.) for the "Section" variant.

Now I'll lean on Ref 1 for those numbers as listed on the bottom of their article as 4 crew + 7 troops.

The "Support" variant won't have a ammo issue as well, it'll only carry a two man dedicated ATGW team attached on very one of the type, also from Ref 1. 5 less seats/troops make a lot of room for extra 30mm rds. and whatever their ATGW teams carry.

I'm leaning on Ref 1 for the BADGER because of the listed Bibliography though the refs are all good, the one that caught my eye was the following: "Smit, A. 2018. Interview with Badger, project manager Denel. Date 9 Feb. 2018."

This is why, though I compared them against my sources, this ref. was so important to me in unraveling the SADF MBT issues as submitted for the last patch, it was the SADF and SA industry interviews that were important to me plus they also included/used a couple of others I had independently researched myself.

So here's that Ref 1 again.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/moder...-africa/Badger

It's always good to have a "tie breaker" if the situation warrants.

The bright side is it's only, actually now 4 years behind schedule. better then ARJUN at 30 years I suppose!?!

Daughter is "kidnapping" CINCLANTHOME for a week so I'm off to bed to send them off.

Thanks Don!

Regards,
Pat

[Karagin]

How is the game mimicking the CROW system, the remote-operated weapon platform that keeps the gunner inside the vehicle? The system has been put on some M1A2s, or at least the battalion I was before retiring had them.

[Mobhack]

An RWS on an APC would be modelled by a coax type MG, some stabiliser, some FC and some night vision. In other words the APC has a "turret" like a tank does. The coax type MG rather than an AAMG will not lose shots for being buttoned if the APC is suppressed (though some APC with an RWS may still have a class 4 AAMG).

An RWS may of course also have an AGL (coax or the main weapon), or a small autocannon or HMG.

Tank MG for an "RWS" might swap out a class 4 AAMG for a coax or MMG class weapon. Tanks already have the FC, RF, Stabiliser and vision post the 50s.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I learned a new "term" from this next article from which I've been preaching on for years concerning the ABRAMS. Simply because a piece of equipment has been accepted for "fielding" doesn't make it so until a set number of units or unit it appears in this case, are fulling equipped with said piece of equipment.

I believe that process took almost 10yrs for the ABRAMS M1A2 SEP 2 with 6-8 Battalions being fully equipped at FOC.

And we're several years into it with ABRAMS M1A2C/SEP 3, with still more years to go, at least 2 more by my calculations.

So the new term I'll be using IAW the USA is First Unit Equipped or FUE. This is the first time I've seen FUE in a ref. but if there's one thing I've learned about JANE's, is they don't lie. So there you have FUE.

So the story concerns the STRYKER 30mm that FUE has been pushed from they say late FY 2022, and I'm assuming last QTR., that would've meant JUL-SEP 2022 planned FUE.

According to JANE's it'll now be earliest FY 2023 2nd QTR. MAR/APR 2023 for FUE/FOC.

Contract still has not been awarded as the companies are still competing for the contract. RAYTHEON, whom some thought they had the "inside track" to get the contract has dropped out. This is bad for any country "generally" for any military equipment.

The service will want a "wash out" to include why they dropped out i.e. funding, technical, future earnings to offset R&D and PROTOTYPE costs issues etc. some or all, bottom-line it simply delays the process or I've seen can cancel the project (However that won't happen here and I've seen projects restarted that were "DOA" only to be revitalized sometimes years later: India's ARJUN anyone?)

Anyway here's your ref...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...b-43d052efe123

And before anyone says anything, please remember, we're only talking about a weapons system here literally, and not a fully redesigned/RESET MBT.

AJAX: Don't normally like using "blogs" however I found this conversation interesting especially in that MOD awarded what would amount to normally be "follow on" contracts before they even had a PROTOTYPE. If true that's a real stupid move due to the risks involved that we now know have. MOD you get the again if true-incredible!?!
https://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=107840
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27...n#.Xx_Kd1qSmUk

Still looks like JANE's has the lead on this but, the second ref discussing where their at with the C&C variant doesn't leave me with a "warm fuzzing" picture concerning when we'll see them. But for now still sticking to my dated suggested earlier.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

which "STRYKER 30mm" are you referring to ?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Stryker DVHA1 with turret mounted 30 mm XM813 cannon. System (Stryker Dragoon) falls under the Medium Calibre Weapons System (MCWS) Program.

2/25/2019
https://www.defensedaily.com/army-lo...strykers/army/

5/23/2019
" The service spent 18 months to put together its Stryker Dragoon using off-the-shelf solutions such as the remote turret from Kongsberg in Norway and the 30mm cannon from Orbital ATK, now owned by Northrop Grumman.

The vehicles were shipped off to Europe for a year-long evaluation.

Feedback from the evaluation suggested some improvements are needed, particularly related to situational awareness. The turret for the cannon takes up a lot of roof and hatch space and also affects how equipment is stowed, for instance."
https://www.defensenews.com/land/201...m-integration/

6/22/2020 Congress involved over evaluation process and that 2 of 6 competitors have dropped out of the evaluation process. The question as I noted independent of this article in my last post, is WHY?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...ouse-proposal/

2/20/2020 Related story concerning the USA canceling the Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) (Replacement for BRADLEY.) (Also called and POSSIBLE consequences to STRYKER DRAGOON Program.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...030mm%20cannon.

Look for an improved BRADLEY M2A4 from 2/10/2019
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...are-dead-44082

Now all of this makes perfectly good sense to me for what JANE's reported in my last post from last night. I can see a possible longer delay for STRYKER DRAGOON as the timing couldn't be worse, we're in a Presidential election cycle.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

They arrived in Germany for testing in Dec 2017 and I have adjusted the date we have in the game now to reflect that. This game is all about " what if" and as of December 2017 there were some for in place for " what if" or are we talking about a different vehicle?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just got home. STRYKER DRAGOON was there (2017) for evaluation only IAW with the current contracts with the now 4 industry corporations involved in the current evaluation ongoing process. That FUE is straight from the USA, all I did was convert "Fiscal Quarters" to their corresponding months and calendar year.

This is in "limbo" right now with the congressional investigation currently ongoing. Again WHY did the other 2 companies drop from the evaluation? Congress wants to know is there a problem as yet undisclosed? Is the STRYKER DRAGOON turret not compatible with the vehicle?

It is important to understand the USA did the development of this piece of equipment and built it from "off the shelf" parts. What could possibly go wrong there?

They are the ones to open it up and chose the defense contractors to further evaluate this equipment because you need industry to mass produce it and develop or improve future and current technologies.

Based on my readings of the refs and more STRYKER DRAGOON is looking more "Putting the Cart before the Horse".

USA should've set the design parameters and operational requirements.

Industry should've designed and submitted the PROTOTYPEs.

And we all how the rest goes from there...I suspect an issue with the turret possibly making the platform unstable somehow.

All I know for sure is the USA has pushed back the date before it equips the FIRST Army Unit.

It sucks but, I can't get around that.

I'm back a little later (Why? )...

"Quick bites" with a couple of my questions asked from above now answered below concerning the 2 "dropouts".

First PROTOTYPE 26 January 2017
https://www.army.mil/article/177472/...ivered_to_army

Competition extended 13 April 2020 Focus on Para #3
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/20...etition-again/

Add on #1...
From this early ref. 2 May 2018.
"In FY17, the Army conducted full-up system-level (FUSL) live fire testing of the ICV-D to assess platform survivability against a spectrum of operationally realistic threats. ]Preliminary assessments demonstrate that stowed 30 mm ammunition on the ICV-D represents a unique platform vulnerability that is not present on other vehicles in the Stryker fleet. Underbody protection afforded by the ICV-D is limited due to the flat-bottom Stryker hull.

In FY17, the Army also conducted a user excursion using soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) to validate development of gunnery training tables to support the operational test in February 2018 in Germany."

The chassis has the Double V-Hull underbody as noted in #3.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...up_poland.html

Add on #2
Current ref. 21 June 2019

" The MCWS program will be carried out in two phases, which will culminate in equipping a Stryker DVH A1 brigade in fiscal 2022, according to the Army."
https://sdquebec.ca/fr/nouvelle/foll...stryker-design

Add on #3
Current ref. 22 June 2020

"In a call with reporters June 16, Col. Bill Venable, the project manager for Stryker brigade combat teams, fielded questions about the health of the MCWS competition, but declined to identify at this sensitive stage which companies dropped out. He said he is satisfied the Army will have options when it begins the next phase of the MCWS competition on Aug. 10.

“I will say this a healthy competition,” Venable said. “We’re going to present a variety of choices to the source-selection authority to evaluate.”

“I know that one of the vendors chose to drop out because it wasn’t on a good technical glide path to achieve the requirements of the solicitation ― and the other one was affordability,” Venable added. “They didn’t think the investment required was going to result in a good chance to win.”

Leonardo DRS, the developer of the IM-SHORAD system, is among the original competitors for MCWS, along with General Dynamics Land Systems, Kollsman Inc., Raytheon, Pratt & Miller Engineering, and Fabrication Inc. The competitors were each given a Stryker and an XM813 cannon, but they must provide their own turret and fire control system.

The next stage for MCWS involves a series of tests, including a live-fire test and an armor test, with results due to an evaluation board in January."

That of course being 2021 if it stays on track.
https://www.armytimes.com/congress/2...ouse-proposal/

And again with the most updated timetable from Post #498
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...b-43d052efe123

I really don't know what more I can do or give you at this point.

But I have a long evening ahead of me later today and I'm tired so, GOOD Night or Morning where ever you are.

Regards,
Pat