US Army News and updates general discussion

OPSSG

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Cyber is the future and you are correct that any loss of this domain will result in terrible consequences.
John Fedup said:
The US army conducted a successful munition redirect. An operator in MH-47 launched a missile via iPad from a UAV. A ground operator then took control of the missile and sent on on to a higher priority target. Impressive technology but I guess the downstroke is a possible hack whereby an adversary redirects the weapon. Hopefully this possibility is extremely unlikely.

Smart Sensor Network Helps Redirect Missile
Click to expand...
Loitering munitions, allow re-attack, change of targets (at different echelons and hand-off) and even parachute recovery if not target is allocated. These are more dangerous if hacked due to time of flight.
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Oh wow.
Bell Textron has released info on their US Army FARA offering. Externally, appearing to be a clean sheet conventional configuration design. Relatively reminiscent of both the Kawasaki OH-1 & Harbin Z-19, while adding some fuselage styling of the RAH-66 Comanche. Most likely can not compete speed wise should Boeing/Sikorsky offer something designed along the lines of their X2 or S-97. But probably highly competitive along operational costs
Also, I believe this might be Bell's first design using a fenestron tail rotor

From BellFlight Twittter
Today we announced a new rotorcraft, Bell 360 Invictus, as our entrant for the U.S. Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (#FARA) Competitive Prototype program!
Learn more: Press Release
Click to expand...



Bell 360 Invictus product page
 
S

SteveR

Active Member
ngatimozart said:
Read the article and it explains the reason.
Click to expand...
Yes the article gives excuses but for a Bid Manager the Critical Path to submitting a bid MUST allow for all the contingencies with some slack to allow for problems. If they can't manage a critical path for a major bid what confidence for delivery under a contract?
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This link mentions some new research advancements for body armour being investigated by the US army jointly with the University of Buffalo. Interesting for sure but it never ceases to amaze me why these concepts are in the public domain. I realize the nitty gridy details aren't present and involve very sophisticated synthesis techniques but why give any clues to potential adversaries?

Army Engineers New Body Armor 14-Times Stronger Against Enemy Fire
 
S

SteveR

Active Member
More on the Bradley Replacement Competition

Breaking Defence confirms Defence News story that Lynx seems to be disqualified but also sheds some details on the remaining GD candidate:

Bradley Replacement: Army Risks Third Failure In A Row

Note the GD solution is largely new with little if any heritage from ASCOD/Ajax. Also when manned by 3 crew it only has 5 dismounts - smaller than the Lynx capacity. Of course when it is autonomous more dismounts can be carried.

Note however that in 2023 other candidates may re-enter the run-off competition though only GD will be paid for Engineering Development up until then. As I recall Oshkosh won JLTV even though it missed the Engineering Development Contract. In the meantime Rheinmetall can mature Lynx through the Australian DoD Land 400 Phase 3 RMA.
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Couldn't get the sound on the ERCA canon video, what is the bore, 155mm? I saw on another site that Rheinmetal was to show their new 130 mm tank gun at this show.
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #212
The US Army is taking a multi spectrum approach the C-UAS with its new Howler System. System using advanced mobile radars and then can target incoming drones kinetically, electronically, or with new Tube launched Counter drones(they Coyote). The C-UAS drone is a small tube launched drone that can be launched from fixed or mobile launchers. The launch tubes can also be attached to existing land combat vehicles to provide forward C-UAS



Drone v Drone: Army Mini-Explosive Drones Kill Enemy Drones
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
Couldn't get the sound on the ERCA canon video, what is the bore, 155mm? I saw on another site that Rheinmetal was to show their new 130 mm tank gun at this show.
Click to expand...
You have to manually turn the volume up on the video player. Took me a couple of goes before I figured it out. Presume it is 155 mm. If they're going to move from 120 mm why don't they go to 127 mm and tie in with the naval guns. Make sense wouldn't it.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
You have to manually turn the volume up on the video player. Took me a couple of goes before I figured it out. Presume it is 155 mm. If they're going to move from 120 mm why don't they go to 127 mm and tie in with the naval guns. Make sense wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
I guess Rheinmetal would have to answer why the extra 3 mm is important. Assuming they will be supplying ammo for their new gun, the extra 3 mm means all the potential 127 mm naval ammo vendors have to spend money developing 130 mm. Would be interesting to know the actual performance gains this extra 3 mm provides.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
I guess Rheinmetal would have to answer why the extra 3 mm is important. Assuming they will be supplying ammo for their new gun, the extra 3 mm means all the potential 127 mm naval ammo vendors have to spend money developing 130 mm. Would be interesting to know the actual performance gains this extra 3 mm provides.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware there has never been a lot of commonality between naval and land guns. Navies and armies doing their own thing - inter-service politics and all that. Also, I believe that naval guns have a higher velocity. A 127 mm naval high velocity gun on a Leopard II would be a nasty piece of work. :D
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
You have to manually turn the volume up on the video player. Took me a couple of goes before I figured it out. Presume it is 155 mm. If they're going to move from 120 mm why don't they go to 127 mm and tie in with the naval guns. Make sense wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
It's a 155mm howitzer, not a gun - and replacing another short barrelled and shorter ranged 155mm howitzer, not a tank gun. So they're maintaining the calibre, and weight of fire. The vehicle it's fitted to is an M-109 Paladin SPH

oldsig
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
ngatimozart said:
As far as I am aware there has never been a lot of commonality between naval and land guns. Navies and armies doing their own thing - inter-service politics and all that. Also, I believe that naval guns have a higher velocity. A 127 mm naval high velocity gun on a Leopard II would be a nasty piece of work. :D
Click to expand...
Would it even still be a Leopard II? A bigger and higher velocity gun would necessitate changes to the turret, especially if you don't want to reduce your ammo load. Depending how serious the changes have to be, it might make sense to update the engine as well.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
WRT to Rheinmetal's new 130 mm gun, it will be part of a future new Franco-German tank and there may be an auto turret. Apparently the gun can be fitted to recent Leo 2s. Absolutely a 127 mm naval gun would require a significant rework to the extent you might as well build a new tank.
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
If the US is moving in this direction, I wonder why are not having a similar conversation re our land 400 offerings.

Regards S
Click to expand...
I would have to guess that it is because the XM913 50mm chain gun was still a prototype/test program when Land 400 was initiated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top