Friday, August 12, 2016

Army talks Mobile Protected Firepower to industry.

via AOL Breaking Defense
In this kind of war, light infantry units can’t count on Air Force transports or Army helicopters to drop them within walking distance of objectives that may have heavy anti-aircraft defenses. Instead, they’ll land outside of missile range and then use cross-country trucks to quickly cross long distances to the objective. That’s the role of the Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV), a parallel Army program to MPF.
I posted this part of the article because I find it interesting.  The idea of doing a mass air drop and then motoring to the objective?  Seriously?  Let's be extremely generous and say that only 20 C-17's can deliver the force.  The enemy isn't going to notice that and start moving every available Armor/Mech/Infantry Battalion towards the square sheets with human meat dangling underneath?

But back on task.  Check this out.
“What we don’t want is an Abrams; we already have an Abrams,” said Col. Will Nuckols, who works for Wesley as Fort Benning’s director of mounted (i.e. vehicle) requirements. “It’s going to be lighter, more strategically mobile, and more tactically mobile than the Abrams — with similar firepower and protection that is suitable to the formation it is supporting.”
The highlighted portion confused the hell outta me.  Forget the firepower part.  I get that.  He's talking about a vehicle with a 120mm cannon.  The part that has me stumped is the protection level they're seeking.

The vehicle sounded like the M8 off the shelf until they started talking protection levels.  This program is looking like a rerun of the FCS.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.