Thursday, September 29, 2016
US Army getting its first Armoured Multipurpose Vehicle this Dec.
Thanks to Jonathan for the link!
via Shepard Media.
The US Army is on schedule to receive its first Armoured Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) prototype from manufacturer BAE Systems this December, company officials have said.Wow. How and when did the Army pull this one on us? I remember this being called a turretless Bradley and there was no pushback. Now we hear that they've snuck and gotten an upgraded hull?
It will be the first of 29 prototypes that will be delivered to the army as part of a 52-month-long engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract, awarded in December 2014.
According to James Miller, business development director at BAE Systems Combat Vehicles, six vehicles are currently going through the production line at the company’s York, Pennsylvania, facility.
‘The first one is starting the final assembly,’ said Miller. ‘We are going to deliver our first vehicle in December, so we are on schedule.’
BAE Systems will manufacture all five variants of the AMPV as part of the initial delivery of 29 prototypes. These variants include mission command, medical treatment, medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), general purpose and mortar carrier.
The project has already achieved several important milestones including its preliminary design review and critical design review, the latter occurring earlier this summer.
Miller said one design change to the vehicle has been to increase the height of the vehicle, in order to increase space and survivability for the soldiers in the back. That has increased the weight, but it remains within the weight limits set by the army.
And although initially described as a ‘turret-less Bradley’, the AMPV does not share the same hull as the Bradley M2 owing to the survivability requirements from the army.
It seems that the Army is playing the procurement game to the "t". How long before they slap a turret on these vehicles and talk about how its more survivable than the Bradley and how they're saving the taxpayers money by not having to develop an entirely new vehicle for an interim replacement?
McMasters and company are playing chess while the Congress is clueless.
The size of the ACV is dictated by its requirements! It sings!
Thanks to Gessler for the pic!
Just got back from a short trip and while going over the comments I noticed people talking about the height of the ACV.
While not ideal its easily explained, makes sense and is dictated by mission requirements for the vehicle.
First we're talking about a vehicle having high mobility. The gold standard for wheeled vehicle mobility in the Marine Corps today is the MTVR. That truck has proven itself capable of going anywhere. What is the secret to its
success? Ground clearance, horsepower, and an outstanding suspension system. Ask anyone that's gone off road in any type wheeled vehicle and they'll tell you that's the "formula" for success. The reason why the MRZR is being touted as a capable off road performer is because it has that formula in spades. If not for the requirement for internal carriage inside the V-22, I'd expect lift kits to be added (SOCOM is probably already/has already looked into it to increase the mobility of their rigs).
Another issue is the requirement to carry upwards of 10 Marines. Most Marines aren't Smurfs and more than many know are in the 95th percentile that is so often talked about but dismissed by armored vehicle manufacturers. Lets just say that big guys in kids seats is very uncomfortable. You build a vehicle to fit the full spectrum of Marines and the vehicle will be "big".
Last but not least is the swim requirement. Sorry but this is what makes building TRUE amphibious assault vehicles hard and what separates the men from the boys. You can't simply put a swim vane on a non-amphibious vehicle and expect to be capable of swimming from ship to shore. Displacement counts.
All in all I have no problem with the size of the BAE SuperAV or the ST Kinetics Terrex 3. Form follows function and these vehicles sing!
Just got back from a short trip and while going over the comments I noticed people talking about the height of the ACV.
While not ideal its easily explained, makes sense and is dictated by mission requirements for the vehicle.
First we're talking about a vehicle having high mobility. The gold standard for wheeled vehicle mobility in the Marine Corps today is the MTVR. That truck has proven itself capable of going anywhere. What is the secret to its success? Ground clearance, horsepower, and an outstanding suspension system. Ask anyone that's gone off road in any type wheeled vehicle and they'll tell you that's the "formula" for success. The reason why the MRZR is being touted as a capable off road performer is because it has that formula in spades. If not for the requirement for internal carriage inside the V-22, I'd expect lift kits to be added (SOCOM is probably already/has already looked into it to increase the mobility of their rigs).
Another issue is the requirement to carry upwards of 10 Marines. Most Marines aren't Smurfs and more than many know are in the 95th percentile that is so often talked about but dismissed by armored vehicle manufacturers. Lets just say that big guys in kids seats is very uncomfortable. You build a vehicle to fit the full spectrum of Marines and the vehicle will be "big".
Last but not least is the swim requirement. Sorry but this is what makes building TRUE amphibious assault vehicles hard and what separates the men from the boys. You can't simply put a swim vane on a non-amphibious vehicle and expect to be capable of swimming from ship to shore. Displacement counts.
All in all I have no problem with the size of the BAE SuperAV or the ST Kinetics Terrex 3. Form follows function and these vehicles sing!
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Fucking Seriously FBI SWAT Alaska??? Jesus dudes!
Read the story over at Firearms Blog. My reaction? FUCK! Those guys could have gotten lit up! They're lucky they didn't take serious casualties.
USMC to acquire Polaris Defense MRZR
via DoDBuzz.
The U.S. Marine Corps is about to outfit its infantry regiments with a version of the Polaris Defense MRZR four-seater, all-terrain vehicle.You do get the force of connection on this don't you? 18 per Regiment means that you're able to move about a Company worth of Marines. They're just doubling down once again on the Company Landing Team.
Under the Utility Task Vehicle program, the Marines are planning to purchase 144 Polaris MRZR-Ds, a new version of the vehicle designed to take diesel and JP8 fuel, Joaquin Salas, business development fort Polaris Defense, told Military.com Tuesday at Modern Day Marine 2016.
No contract has been awarded yet, but the Corps is planning on fielding 18 MRZR-Ds per infantry regiment, according to UTV program information displayed at the USMC’s Program Manager Light Tactical Vehicles booth at the show.
The vehicles are scheduled to go into production in October, Salas said. In addition to the four crew seats, the MRZR-D features a small cargo bed and is capable of carrying 1,500 pounds of payload, Salas said.
The MRZR-D vehicles are designed to be carried inside a V-22 Osprey “to provide logistic support for infantry forces,” Salas said. “It enables them to deploy long distance in the V-22, and then when they get to the ground they are not stuck with only their feet to move logistics.”
The U.S. Army’s 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division dropped 10 MRZRs when it jumped into Poland in June as part of an exercise to test of their ability to bolster NATO’s eastern flank against possible Russian aggression.
The MRZR ATV is a very Spartan design. There’s no armor protection. It’s designed to carry extra ammunition, food, water and casualties if necessary.
“We are not comparing this to a JLTV or an up-armored Humvee or anything like that,” Salas said. “It’s designed to stay off road; it’s designed to enable you to be unpredictable.
“It’s a mule. It’s designed to be there at the most tactical level.”
I marvel at the stubbornness and the desire by HQMC to push forward despite all evidence that a CLT will be ABNORMALLY vulnerable against the new jack terrorist formations we're seeing.
What is the thinking? Is the Marine Corps and SOCOM so convinced that this generational war against terrorists will last for another 50 years that they're willing to destroy the Marine Air Ground Task Force to chase it?
Open Comment Post. Sept 28, 2016
Ultra Heavy Landing Craft. Remember when Amos and HQMC was selling us the bullshit that we would have to launch from over 200 miles out? Remember Greenert not getting the memo (and maintaining his integrity) by saying that's wrong and that the Navy would rollback enemy defenses so that we could launch from traditional distances?
Fast forward to today.
The ACV will have 14 vehicles delivered to the Marine Corps by two manufacturers and THEN they will be tested for ANOTHER year and a half before they make a decision?
Leadership is full of shit. The ACV won't survive the study being conducted now and all hope that Neller will pull the Marine Corps out of its tailspin has been lost.
Mark my words. The next big fight will see momma's of America crying buckets.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Korean War Naval Aviation was kinda cool....in a very deadly way....
 |
| via USS Edsall Tumblr Page
VA-195 Dambusters was assigned to Carrier Air Group 19 (CVG-19) for a deployment to the Korean War from 21 March to 03 November 1952. The “special weapon” was a 454 kg (1000 lb) bomb with a kitchen sink attached. The idea came up when the squadron’s executive officer LCDR M.K. Dennis remarked during a meeting with the press: “We dropped everything on them (the North Koreans) but a kitchen sink.” Royal J. Deland, ADC, and J. Burnett, ADC, then produced a bomb with a kitchen sink attached. The commanding Admiral was not pleased by this and would not allow to drop the bomb for a week. However, press coverage in the United States obviously led to the dropping of this bomb in August 1952 on Pyongyang by Lt.(jg) Carl B. Austin.
You think this would fly in 2016? Somehow I doubt it. The crazy thing? Flag Officers haven't changed (with a few exceptions) and the pressure to drop the kitchen sink came from the public!
|
Russian And Chinese Marines conduct amphibious assault exercise.
Thanks to Anderson for the link!
The Pentagon has been so busy jumping thru hoops for Combatant Commanders that are pushing idiot partnership missions that no one is seeing the danger in our so called pivot to the Pacific.
China is effectively nullifying the "coalition" that we're building. If they're very selective in their target choice then many of our allies will sit out the fight.
Even worse? They're gaining economic power over our allies that could in time trump any thoughts of Chinese hegemony.
Our best and brightest are playing checkers while the Chinese...along with the Russians...are playing chess.
The Pentagon has been so busy jumping thru hoops for Combatant Commanders that are pushing idiot partnership missions that no one is seeing the danger in our so called pivot to the Pacific.
China is effectively nullifying the "coalition" that we're building. If they're very selective in their target choice then many of our allies will sit out the fight.
Even worse? They're gaining economic power over our allies that could in time trump any thoughts of Chinese hegemony.
Our best and brightest are playing checkers while the Chinese...along with the Russians...are playing chess.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)