APC Development and related topics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well again official, USA received it's first prototype European theatre AOR STRYKER with 30mm. The video link at the end of the article is interesting also on the couple of other systems it talks about. Like DID this is another reason I like this site as it provides links (As highlighted.) with the articles.
Their is some insight as you listen and LOOK at the video on the topic at hand and about the future BRADLEY.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem..._50211161.html

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Well again official, USA received it's first prototype European theatre AOR STRYKER with 30mm. The video link at the end of the article is interesting also on the couple of other systems it talks about. Like DID this is another reason I like this site as it provides links (As highlighted.) with the articles.
Their is some insight as you listen and LOOK at the video on the topic at hand and about the future BRADLEY.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem..._50211161.html

Regards,
Pat

What is the infantry carry capacity of the proposed Dragoon?

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What they've done was basically cut the old roof off and replaced it with a slightly higher welded roof one, to minimize the adding on of the turret and two, not to impact troop capacity of 9 armed and equipped troops. And they even have air conditioning not for the troops but for the advanced FCS and associated electronics suite (Effective range @ 3000yds vs. just under 1900yds w/12.7mm.) plus the mechanical systems for the drive unit of the turret.
One of many...
http://www.macombdaily.com/article/M...NEWS/161029617


Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

And to further confuse things apparently the USMC wants to replace the AAV series vehicles with an ACV1.2, a larger variant (13 passengers, better armor, possibly a LAV-25 type turret) of the ACV1.1. The problem is that while the ACV1.1 can handle rivers it can't handle ocean surf, the ACV1.2 will be able to.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/b...e-for-marines/

As I mentioned elsewhere one of the problems with replacing the AAV series vehicles with ACV's is the USMC will require apx. 25% more sealift then an equivalent sized MEU equipped with AAVs. But more ships will at least make the Gator Navy (the popular term for the amphibious warfare branch of the US Navy) happy.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What does it take to build a new Amphibious capable APC when you don't really already a "modern" one to work with? Well Poland is doing just that now. You'll find (If you've followed the discussion a few years back.) a couple of old programs mentioned that were somewhat contested as they have them or not. It was established as - not. A very good read on the thinking, planning and how to we get there to the final options (Maybe.) Gotta get ready for work so here you go...
http://www.defence24.com/501697,poli...he-new-vehicle

Well it has a name so that's always a good start-well again maybe.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Yeah, amphibious APCs take the age old tank problem of balancing armor, weapons, and speed to a whole new level because in spite of some manufacturers "cheating" by floating totally unloaded vehicles they have to be able to float with a combat load and passengers to be of any practical use.

You also have to take into account the total volume and mass of the vehicles required to move a given size landing force because without ships to get them where you need them while useful for river crossings they're useless as an amphibious asset.

[luigim]

Algeria in 2016 has fielded BMP2 Berezokh

http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._31404162.html

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Don't have much time here's what I have on the Japanese Prototype 8x8 APC. Crew and carry same as the TYPE 96.
http://www.janes.com/article/66989/j...-apc-prototype
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._11601173.html
http://www.military-today.com/apc/ne...se_8x8_apc.htm

And they just posted an update (Within the last 2hrs.) on the EITAN and yes we finally have the dimensions for it!!
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
Don't have much time here's what I have on the Japanese Prototype 8x8 APC. Crew and carry same as the TYPE 96.
http://www.janes.com/article/66989/j...-apc-prototype
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._11601173.html
http://www.military-today.com/apc/ne...se_8x8_apc.htm

I put it in simply because in this case, it was simple. The basic design for APC's these days follows a predictable pattern and I have three years to get the details right but for now, it's a Patria clone

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

And they just posted an update (Within the last 2hrs.) on the EITAN and yes we finally have the dimensions for it!!
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

Regards,
Pat

Still kinda general but I'll do the math and see how close I was

EDIT......one pixel in length and 2 in width ( now corrected )

the Eitan looks tiny compared to the Namer but the Namer is HUGE ( unless they put the smallest troopers they could find for that photo )

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Japan: You're right it looks very similar to the PATRIA.

Israel: What I knew already - The NAMER is based on the MERKAVA IV chassis. What we didn't know is the difference between the two in dimensions, I'm using the NAMER as the reference point for the following...

1)It's 15 tons heavier than the maximum weight of the EITAN with the add on armor package (20 tons w/o it.).

2) L: ~.5m shorter, W: 1 - .8M wider and H: .5 - 1m shorter. The difference again is depending on the add on armor package being added or not for the EITAN.

And really it all makes sense for a tank hull versus an APC one. Following for progression and maintaining a "clean package" if you will.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/namera.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/namer.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/eitan.htm

I'm done playing, time to enjoy my weekend a little bit.

Regards,
Pat