US Army News and updates general discussion

[Terran]

Also a significant weight savings is that both the South Korean K11 and Chinese QTS-11/ZH-05 fire a smaller 20mm round. And that the QTS-11 doesn't utilize a magazine

Not that sure about how significant that is.
XM25 was about 13.8 pounds empty. The shells it fired were 174g it had 5 of them so estimated 1.9 pounds assuming that the magazine is in the empty weight we get about 15.7 pounds of Punisher.
The FCS was 2.6 pounds.
the XM29 was 15 pounds empty (Wiki entry sources Janes entry) in 20x28mm the listed loaded weight is 18 pounds.
Now obviously there is an elephant in the room. The 5.56x45mm KE module see can’t get exact here but just a guess the G36C is in the same family of weapons and has the same barrel length it’s 6.2 pounds, but then we have to load it adding a pound for 30 rounds of 5.56x45mm but then we start chopping off weight so I figure looking at as light an AR pistol on the market as base gives 4 pounds empty 5 loaded for 13 pounds of launcher ammo and FCS. Listed weight of FCS is 2.6 pounds.
So just launcher and ammo 11.4 pounds give or take.
Do the same to XM25 13.1 pounds. So 1.7 pounds give or take difference between them.
I know that’s a rough yet I think that’s about right.
The real weight savings is the lack of a gas system.
So if we take the Empty weight of K11 13.5 pounds vs Empty XM29. If we assume similar weight in optics it’s 1.5 pounds difference.
do the same for QST11 empty weight no optic 9.4 lbs so XM29 13.4 (empty no FCS estimate) we get 4 pounds of gas operation vs a bolt action single shot. Of course the QST11 makes up for that lack by its FCS. The full system loaded with FCS is 15 pounds vs XM25 loaded its 11 ounces lighter.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Spike-SR is pretty much Spike in name only. What it looks like is the abandoned USMC FGM-172 SRAW program brought to fruition . Which IMI partnered with LockMart in development. Nothing like 3 decades of US DoD funding to move a program along.

The Spike SR has a dual mode seeker. The SRAW only has an INS. That makes them fundamentally different. Not to mention the Spike SR's range is triple that of the SRAW.

Also, IMI is now part of Elbit. Spike is a Rafael product.

 

[ngatimozart]

Boeing has restarted flight testing the CH-47F Chinook Block II. The US Army had no intention of acquiring the Block II because it wants to concentrate its effort and funding on FVL, however Congress has pushed back and forced the Army to continue with Block II testing.

With new CH-47 variant back in flight tests, Boeing hopes for production contract

Boeing is expecting the Army to award a first production contract for the CH-47F Block II Chinook this fiscal year as it dives back into flight testing.

www.defensenews.com

Sikorsky have flown the first flight demo of the S-97 Raider for Army top brass.

Sikorsky's S-97 Raider Recon Helicopter Performs First Flight Demos for Army Leaders

Sikorsky's S-97 is competing against Bell Textron Inc.'s 360 Invictus single-rotor prototype helicopter for the Army's FARA program.

www.military.com

 

[John Fedup]

The CH-47 with new blades and larger engines should do well in the export market with countries not wanting the risk and expense of new design cutting edge tech.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

BAE reveals their entry for the OMFV.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1382715026083966988

Their entry seems to use a turreted AMPV using an Elbit MT/UT-30 turret.
On first sight it's very weird. The Army requires a 50mm gun, and wants a brand new vehicle that will last for the next 40-50 years if not more.
I personally believe in a brand new design, but BAE aren't idiots and I will try to thoroughly make the case for their decision.

1. Army wants it cheap. Using the AMPV as the base platform will allow the Army to spread the expenditure over a longer period of time, with it growing over time instead of seeing a major expenditure spike at the beginning.
2. Army wants it steady. It will allow taking a stepped approach, where concurrent processes are less dependent on each other, therefore fewer points of failure.

So that was very broadly the explanation. Now for the specifics.

The OMFV is a program for the development of a new IFV, and a new concept. What this means is that it doesn't just have to drive a squad of soldiers to a contested area and deliver firepower, but also it has to enable a new concept of warfighting, via multiple technological breakthroughs that occurred lately and which Army wants to exploit. Similar international programs are the Israeli Carmel, and the German MGCS. Russia has the Armata family, which, if successful, may lay the ground work for a similar program.

USA - IOC in 2028, OMFV is first vehicle and NGCV includes other members of a family.
Israel - IOC in 2027, planned entire family, unknown what vehicle will be made operational first.
Germany - IOC in 30's, planned tank component first. Unknown what other vehicles are planned.
France - same as Germany but IOC in early 40's.

Because it is a concept enabler as well, the systems segment is more important than the platform itself.
What BAE may be banking on, is an advantage in the systems segment via Elbit, and then as the Army finds the money for it, start developing the platform as well.
With the M109A7/8 entering service, the AMPV, and possible other Bradley derivatives, the Army will remain wedded to the Bradley chassis for many decades to come.

If the Army will decide to get the AMPV as a launch platform, and then develop a new platform for the systems, it will have the option to end production of Bradley components much earlier, and reuse these platforms to sustain existing fleets.

BAE's choice of Elbit will give it a tactical edge. Rheinmetall couldn't get it because Elbit would want a bigger share of the deal, and BAE is best positioned to partner with it.
GD may partner with Rafael in the future. If not, Rafael will seek another partner. IAI, I believe, also expressed interest in entering the program.

Elbit has already demonstrated the Israeli version of OMFV in August 2019, meaning its systems are most probably more mature than Raytheon-Rhm-Textron-L3 team.

Alternatively, if BAE wants to develop a new platform, it can in the meantime start demonstrating to the Army straight ahead, while the competitors aren't yet ready for demonstrations.

Elbit is also the maker of the Iron Fist system. We can expect aggressive competition from Rafael, but Elbit still has the ability to deny competitors its own APS at least, thus forcing them to spend extra money for internal development, which would make it less lucrative for the Army. This decision could easily bounce back as Elbit would see more competition in the APS market.

 

[ngatimozart]

The CH-47 with new blades and larger engines should do well in the export market with countries not wanting the risk and expense of new design cutting edge tech.

Well I would like to see four wearing the Kiwi roundel, but dreams are free.

 

[Terran]

BAE reveals their entry for the OMFV.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1382715026083966988

Their entry seems to use a turreted AMPV using an Elbit MT/UT-30 turret.
On first sight it's very weird. The Army requires a 50mm gun, and wants a brand new vehicle that will last for the next 40-50 years if not more.
I personally believe in a brand new design, but BAE aren't idiots and I will try to thoroughly make the case for their decision.

1. Army wants it cheap. Using the AMPV as the base platform will allow the Army to spread the expenditure over a longer period of time, with it growing over time instead of seeing a major expenditure spike at the beginning.
2. Army wants it steady. It will allow taking a stepped approach, where concurrent processes are less dependent on each other, therefore fewer points of failure.

So that was very broadly the explanation. Now for the specifics.

The OMFV is a program for the development of a new IFV, and a new concept. What this means is that it doesn't just have to drive a squad of soldiers to a contested area and deliver firepower, but also it has to enable a new concept of warfighting, via multiple technological breakthroughs that occurred lately and which Army wants to exploit. Similar international programs are the Israeli Carmel, and the German MGCS. Russia has the Armata family, which, if successful, may lay the ground work for a similar program.

USA - IOC in 2028, OMFV is first vehicle and NGCV includes other members of a family.
Israel - IOC in 2027, planned entire family, unknown what vehicle will be made operational first.
Germany - IOC in 30's, planned tank component first. Unknown what other vehicles are planned.
France - same as Germany but IOC in early 40's.

Because it is a concept enabler as well, the systems segment is more important than the platform itself.
What BAE may be banking on, is an advantage in the systems segment via Elbit, and then as the Army finds the money for it, start developing the platform as well.
With the M109A7/8 entering service, the AMPV, and possible other Bradley derivatives, the Army will remain wedded to the Bradley chassis for many decades to come.

If the Army will decide to get the AMPV as a launch platform, and then develop a new platform for the systems, it will have the option to end production of Bradley components much earlier, and reuse these platforms to sustain existing fleets.

BAE's choice of Elbit will give it a tactical edge. Rheinmetall couldn't get it because Elbit would want a bigger share of the deal, and BAE is best positioned to partner with it.
GD may partner with Rafael in the future. If not, Rafael will seek another partner. IAI, I believe, also expressed interest in entering the program.

Elbit has already demonstrated the Israeli version of OMFV in August 2019, meaning its systems are most probably more mature than Raytheon-Rhm-Textron-L3 team.

Alternatively, if BAE wants to develop a new platform, it can in the meantime start demonstrating to the Army straight ahead, while the competitors aren't yet ready for demonstrations.

Elbit is also the maker of the Iron Fist system. We can expect aggressive competition from Rafael, but Elbit still has the ability to deny competitors its own APS at least, thus forcing them to spend extra money for internal development, which would make it less lucrative for the Army. This decision could easily bounce back as Elbit would see more competition in the APS market.

It’s not AMPV. It has parts from it but it’s not.

BAE Systems Next Generation Bradley IFV Infantry Fighting Vehicle for

BAE Systems Next Generation Bradley IFV Infantry Fighting Vehicle for United States Armed Forces At AUSA 2016, the Association

www.armyrecognition.com

BAE Systems debuting next generation Bradley prototype

BAE Systems’ Next Generation Bradley Fighting Vehicle demonstrator is debuting today at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

www.baesystems.com

Rebuilding The M2 Bradley: Same A4 Turret But Most Is New - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: More horsepower. Higher suspension. A blast-resistant underbody. Safer fuel tanks. A larger hull. Take it all together and this may not just be another upgrade but more like a complete rebuild. The goal is allow the 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley to survive on the battlefields of the...

breakingdefense.com

Back in 2016 BAE showed the “Next Generation Bradley” which as the name implies was supposed to be to fill the idea of a huge upgrade of the existing base platform. It would have had a new power pack, a new Mitsubishi Terra Ninja Hydro pneumatic suspension, improved ammo and fuel stowage, upgraded electronics new hull. basically a new vehicle that looks like the old one. Frankensteined from bits of the AMPV, Bradley and M109A7. So it seem that BAE pulled the turret off and swapped it for an Elbit model. The Hull was new as BAE justify it, The hull isn’t that big a deal it costs as much as the transmission.
Basically the Bradley is hitting the Ship paradox. Keep replacing bits on a ship is it the same ship it started as?

So that was BAEs offer. Personal opinion, It lacks the growth potential of L3,Raytheon,Rheinmetall and Textron.
Aspects like Trophy and even Spike missiles (if wanted) could be added to KF41 just as easily as Bradley II. I mean that was and is part of the whole concept of APS, A modular retrofitable protection system able to be “bolted on” and existing platform that has the growth potential. Bradley has always been small in troop capacity, even if they stripped the interior I find it hard to imagine a full 9 man squad plus 2 and larger ammunition type in the same platform. this said they advertise a 50 ton growth point which is 5 tons less than KF41.

Team Lynx is bringing a possible world beater in Lynx and the teaming. Rheinmetall as turret gun and vehicle aspects, Textron is no slouch they build armor. They have the production capacity and are likely to be major players for unmanned ground vehicles due to owning the Ripsaw. Made in the USA will be a factor here and Textron has the capability to license and build. Raytheon is no slouch in sensors and systems the TOW system may seem dated but they have the knowledge to build new systems in the old package it might give spike a good run for it’s money. The Coyote UAS also really impressive package. L3 Harris isn’t a light weight either. If anyone could load Lynx with the state of the art it’s them.
So Team Lynx vs BAE Elbit is a battle of giants.

We don’t know what GDLS has up its sleeve I am betting an improved Griffin III. It’s partnered with Areoviroment and Applied intuition (the later is a software firm on Autonomus vehicles). If griffin iii based that’s not much larger than stock Bradley in troops. I know “New concept”. Yet it’s still a troop carrier at heart. The “new” is really about how it supports the oldest most effective weapon in human history and well into the future the infantry. GDLS is a known competitor in Armored vehicles they make Abrams, Stryker even Nammer and Ajax. They have a long track record for just this kind of mission GDLS already has the turret option proven with a hull and time in live fire with the XM915 gun. Areoviroment is a perfect partner from droning the OMFV they might not have all the package but that’s fine. Most of the offensive equipment will be separate government supply anyway.

one two three.
Supposed it’s time for the fourth option and a underdog team at that. Oshkosh defense and Hanwha are offering Redback.

OMFV: Korea’s Hanwha Is Officially In - Breaking Defense

The Korean company is partnering with US-based Oshkosh. That means at least five teams are now competing to replace the M2 Bradley, a far stronger response than the Army’s first attempt in 2019.

breakingdefense.com

Redback is thusly competing against KF41 in Australia Land 400 and now OMFV. That Spider is a beautiful beast. Probably the only thing that rivals KF41 in protection and growth potential. Oshkosh is well known for vehicles primarily trucks. Hanwha makes armored vehicles and systems they make a lot of parts for one of the most advanced MBT in the World the K2 Black Panther, as well manufacturing the K21 IFV (which is a close cousin to the Redback) and K9 Thunder SPH. Note I didn’t say AS21 this is as the AS was supposed to stand for AuStralia. Presumably a “US21” designation will be used. Details are thin but Oshkosh is known to have an Electric drive system meaning it might be a hybrid. K21 uses the same In arm hydro pneumatic suspension as the K2 which I think is a huge plus. If the offering is anything like the AS21 than it might be a real deal. Interesting to see if they can recruit more to the team but as is they already have a good basis for the automotive and hull. AS21 though used an Elbit EOS T2000 turret and Spike missiles. Those might not be options here. John Cockrill America would be a prime target to team.

Finally is the wild card Mettle ops a newcomer. No known product as such, let’s just say highly unlikely at best.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Back in 2016 BAE showed the “Next Generation Bradley” which as the name implies was supposed to be to fill the idea of a huge upgrade of the existing base platform. It would have had a new power pack, a new Mitsubishi Terra Ninja Hydro pneumatic suspension, improved ammo and fuel stowage, upgraded electronics new hull. basically a new vehicle that looks like the old one. Frankensteined from bits of the AMPV, Bradley and M109A7. So it seem that BAE pulled the turret off and swapped it for an Elbit model. The Hull was new as BAE justify it, The hull isn’t that big a deal it costs as much as the transmission.
Basically the Bradley is hitting the Ship paradox. Keep replacing bits on a ship is it the same ship it started as?

You may be right. This may definitely be some Bradley versions' frankenstein. Either way, it will be very far from either, because to actually create a prototype, the entire interior will have to be remodeled.
First, you eliminate the driver's station.
Second, you eliminate the turret basket to accommodate a new layout.
Third, you create a single cockpit in the hull, manned by 2 crewmen.
Four, use the remaining space, of which there should now be more, to re-create the troop compartment, which may be expanded to either accommodate more men, or more equipment.
The automotives will have to also be adjusted to receive an APU, and probably by that time a new powerpack, e.g ACE or a hybrid or anything else. Indeed the ship paradox you've said.
With the superstructure modular enough to accept different types of automotive components, BAE offers the army a way to get the important capabilities at their raw price right now, and pay for the expensive automotives later.

Aspects like Trophy and even Spike missiles (if wanted) could be added to KF41 just as easily as Bradley II. I mean that was and is part of the whole concept of APS, A modular retrofitable protection system able to be “bolted on” and existing platform that has the growth potential.

That is the concept of MAPS, the American program for a modular APS, for which there is a reason why it is a little more than just sticking a COTS APS on a vehicle.
The concept of APS is to shoot down projectiles.
An APS is very difficult to integrate on a vehicle, if you want to use it to its full potential. It needs to integrate with the main computer, if there is one, of the AFV. Then said computer must extract data from the radars to acquire the shooter, and then act on said data until the gun is perfectly laid on the target, in a matter of seconds.
That data must be duplicated on a BMS for others to see, and there are probably many other manipulations of said data. Part of the project is also to create vastly improved situational awareness, and APS sensors are seen as an important element of that effort.

Raytheon is no slouch in sensors and systems the TOW system may seem dated but they have the knowledge to build new systems in the old package it might give spike a good run for it’s money.

Developing an entirely new missile? Yeah, that's a major program in itself. That's huge reliance on project convergence.
What's more, the effort to make it within the form factor of the TOW and its interfaces to be usable on TOW launchers is going to be a major obstacle to making a Spike competitor. Especially when Spike is so successful in NATO.

AS21 though used an Elbit EOS T2000 turret and Spike missiles. Those might not be options here. John Cockrill America would be a prime target to team.

John Cockerill is not a good option, at least as it seems. The big item here is not the turret. It's the systems that are in and around the turret, around the vehicle, and the cockpit design, as well as interoperability with unmanned vehicles.
John Cockerill as a turret maker hasn't even integrated an APS and a missile like the Spike or MMP yet, AFAIK.
I just don't see them contributing past the basic turret structure.
And Hanwha needed a partner for systems for the Australian tender.

 

[Terran]

You may be right. This may definitely be some Bradley versions' frankenstein. Either way, it will be very far from either, because to actually create a prototype, the entire interior will have to be remodeled.
First, you eliminate the driver's station.
Second, you eliminate the turret basket to accommodate a new layout.
Third, you create a single cockpit in the hull, manned by 2 crewmen.
Four, use the remaining space, of which there should now be more, to re-create the troop compartment, which may be expanded to either accommodate more men, or more equipment.
The automotives will have to also be adjusted to receive an APU, and probably by that time a new powerpack, e.g ACE or a hybrid or anything else. Indeed the ship paradox you've said.
With the superstructure modular enough to accept different types of automotive components, BAE offers the army a way to get the important capabilities at their raw price right now, and pay for the expensive automotives later.

The automotive elements of the Bradley are the worst parts. Current Bradley has pretty much maxed out it’s power in both Automotive and electrical.which lead to issues in attempts at adding APS systems to the vehicle. The M2A5 ECP that was pushed in 2018 was to allow for 8 dismounts that is bigger that stock Bradley or current ones 6-7 but an Army rifle squad is 9. AMPV with its reconfiguration fits 6 dismounts. So it’s seems likely that it would still come in under Lynx and Redback In troops.

That is the concept of MAPS, the American program for a modular APS, for which there is a reason why it is a little more than just sticking a COTS APS on a vehicle.
The concept of APS is to shoot down projectiles.
An APS is very difficult to integrate on a vehicle, if you want to use it to its full potential. It needs to integrate with the main.

But it also need to be able to be both updated and upgraded OMFV is likely to be in service for decades. Also this is a US Army program so MAPS is potentially valid. Besides which again what we are Talking about is the concept not yet the physical vehicle.

Developing an entirely new missile? Yeah, that's a major program in itself. That's huge reliance on project convergence.
What's more, the effort to make it within the form factor of the TOW and its interfaces to be usable on TOW launchers is going to be a major obstacle to making a Spike competitor. Especially when Spike is so successful in NATO.

Made easier as the US Army already has pipelined TOW upgrades. SPIKE however has not been officially adopted by the US. Missiles and weapons tend to fall under government supplied equipment. That means running the whole process like you just said not easy and establishing a production like in the US with a US owned TDP which might mean Lockheed Martin or Raytheon building the missiles.

John Cockerill is not a good option, at least as it seems. The big item here is not the turret. It's the systems that are in and around the turret, around the vehicle, and the cockpit design, as well as interoperability with unmanned vehicles.
John Cockerill as a turret maker hasn't even integrated an APS and a missile like the Spike or MMP yet, AFAIK.
I just don't see them contributing past the basic turret structure.
And Hanwha needed a partner for systems for the Australian tender.

neither do I, but they need a turret. With Elbit being partnered to BAE that might be the alternative option.
They have however added a missile launcher to the 3000 series before. The Missle system though is less important, the gun system is less important the Drone partnered is more. The systems partnered is more so. Hanwha had to partner. Just as they already have here with Oshkosh. Hanwha does have its own turret on the K21 it could come out with their own for this too. But no word on that. Much of this is up in the air. These days armored vehicles are almost lego kits. Unlike when Bradley was originally designed today you don’t need to scratch design a turret to the vehicle. You can mix an match almost to your hearts desire.

 

[John Fedup]

GM has an electric prototype ISV. Needless to say electric vehicles add a bit of audio stealth. GM is heavily committed to electrifying it entire vehicle production so other electric military applications are likely.

GM Defense: New President, New Factory, New Electric Truck - Breaking Defense

The fledgling defense wing of the giant civilian automaker rolled out an all-electric version of its Infantry Squad Vehicle, eying an Army competition for a stealthy electric scout.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Terran]

GM has an electric prototype ISV. Needless to say electric vehicles add a bit of audio stealth. GM is heavily committed to electrifying it entire vehicle production so other electric military applications are likely.

GM Defense: New President, New Factory, New Electric Truck - Breaking Defense

The fledgling defense wing of the giant civilian automaker rolled out an all-electric version of its Infantry Squad Vehicle, eying an Army competition for a stealthy electric scout.

breakingdefense.com

The ISV as an unarmored vehicle would make sense for electrification. However I think it will still need some kind of generator. As the article points out there are no super chargers in the field. Even if there were it takes almost an hour to charge a large battery for an EV. Where as a Hybrid power system with fuel option means you can tank up with JP8 then charge as you go. Lithium ion battery systems are also dangerous if ruptured producing a very hot toxic fiery hazard.
I know it’s not as “Green” but hydrocarbons are a energy dense highly mobile mode of power transfer. They are fast to pump into a fuel tank and highly stable in most common forms. In a proper cost benefit I think that a hybrid vehicle still works as the best option for the military with pure electric vehicles more in a second tier centered around rear areas or short missions.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The automotive elements of the Bradley are the worst parts. Current Bradley has pretty much maxed out it’s power in both Automotive and electrical.which lead to issues in attempts at adding APS systems to the vehicle. The M2A5 ECP that was pushed in 2018 was to allow for 8 dismounts that is bigger that stock Bradley or current ones 6-7 but an Army rifle squad is 9. AMPV with its reconfiguration fits 6 dismounts. So it’s seems likely that it would still come in under Lynx and Redback In troops.

I'm not particularly familiar with Bradley automotive issues, or the plans to upgrade them. I do know however that automotives is an area that has picked up recently, with multiple innovations like the ACE series of compact engines and hybrid electric drives to give instant high torque.

Utilizing a Bradley hull at the first stage at least, would still allow the Army to save money in these critical early stages of the program, and separate the platform from the systems in the acquisition strategy. It will also allow using existing facilities and tools to start pumping out OMFVs at a much faster rate than any other contender.

That was my key point.

But it also need to be able to be both updated and upgraded OMFV is likely to be in service for decades. Also this is a US Army program so MAPS is potentially valid. Besides which again what we are Talking about is the concept not yet the physical vehicle.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Again, APS is a very difficult system to integrate to a vehicle. Elbit has a serious advantage here because its own turrets are at the highest level of integration with the Iron Fist, compared to any rival product. Rheinmetall's Lance 2.0 has a more basic level of integration with it.
If BAE rewires and adds power to the Bradley derivative it offers, it will be able to power any APS.

Made easier as the US Army already has pipelined TOW upgrades.

In what way? It only described the interest in such a system. It doesn't mean Raytheon will actually do it. And if they will, it will take government funding.
So TOW will only be relevant if the Army decides to invest billions more in a TOW upgrade.

Hanwha had to partner. Just as they already have here with Oshkosh. Hanwha does have its own turret on the K21 it could come out with their own for this too. But no word on that. Much of this is up in the air. These days armored vehicles are almost lego kits. Unlike when Bradley was originally designed today you don’t need to scratch design a turret to the vehicle. You can mix an match almost to your hearts desire.

They still need a strong systems provider. They don't have a well established one.

 

[Terran]

U.S. Army takes delivery of new Robotic Combat Vehicle prototypes

On Wednesday, the U.S. Army has confirmed that it has taken delivery of eight Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) prototypes that will be used in a series of Soldier Touchpoints to further the Army’s Campaign of Learning. According to a recent service news release, the fourth and final RCV (Medium)...

defence-blog.com

Ripsaw is moving ahead. Obviously this isn’t a a manned vehicle but I think it is comparable to the Russian Terminator at least in role. If implemented like was show at AUSA shows this would pack the same turret as the Stryker Gunslinger that means a 30mm Bushmaster and 30 cal in a Crows with an ATGM.
this is personal opinion but I wish the Army adopted the 7.62mm Chaingun for this and other remote weapons stations. I mean without a crew there is no need to be able to convert for bailout but if the vehicle were used in asymmetric warfare the weapon might be salvaged by an adversary. The Bushmaster isn’t an issue as the electrically fired weapon can’t be converted.

 

[Terran]

US Army chooses winner to build its new Stryker gun system

The Army has chosen who will build its Medium Caliber Weapon System for the Stryker combat vehicle.

www.defensenews.com

Oshkosh wins to build Strykers turret. Pratt Miller partnered with Rafael for the SAMSON turrets. before they (Pratt and Miller) got bought by Oshkosh. This is the second generation of the Stryker MCW. Basically this replaces the old some of the ICV which were armed with a .50 cal with a technically IFV but not called one, and the Stryker MSG armed with a 105mm.
This really shows that Oshkosh is moving up in the defense industry. Via Pratt they have a lot of systems integration know how. So their NGCV bid gets more going for it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Gawd I hope that isn't the final turret design. It looks like an outback dunny painted green and dumped on top of the vehicle.

 

[Terran]

Samson turret was made for looks. It was made to hurl 30x173mms of Doom.

 

[OPSSG]

The Oshkosh contract is for 91 Stryker MCWSs (in three Stryker Brigade Combat Teams); and follows from the US Army announcement to divest it’s Stryker 105mm Mobile Gun Systems.

Gawd I hope that isn't the final turret design. It looks like an outback dunny painted green and dumped on top of the vehicle.

The MCWSs turret that won for Oshkosh (formerly bid under Pratt and Miller) looks ok. It’s just the weird camera angle (as it’s the same family as the Sampson turret on Singapore’s Hunter AFV).

The Samson MCWSs turret system selected by the US Army uses a dual-axis stabilized mount of the XM-813 30mm cannon and coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; both can be used simultaneously. Loading and reloading of both weapons are enabled under armor coverage; and it will require further integration of the Javelin missiles used by the US Army.

 

[ngatimozart]

Samson turret was made for looks. It was made to hurl 30x173mms of Doom.

Yep I know what it's made for, but it looks like it's top heavy.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Samson itself is a family, although Rafael does not very clearly distinguish between the variants.
There are the Samson 1 and 2, filling different niches, but first of all a low cost design offering significant core capabilities.
Then there is the Samson All in One, which has a distinct shape (as seen on Hunter) and which is offered with different additions.

Rafael's core capabilities here are easy integration with APS and ATGMs (already done on software level), plus other proprietary equipment, the ability to offer an exceptional dynamic range of capabilities and costs (catering to low end and very high end markets alike), and some unique architecture like reloading under armor, and maintenance under armor. Though, the last 2 may not be true for every variant.

The US variant is not visually similar to any variant. It is a unique variant that accounts for the different gun mechanism. All previous Rafael turrets have used the Mk44-S gun, which is non-electric. The XM813 IIRC is electric powered.

Its shape is more or less round, as it lacks most of the core peripheral systems Rafael has on offer - Trophy, Spike, etc.

 

[John Fedup]

This article discusses True Velocity’s 6.8 mm cartridge, the TVCM. Apparently it may be applicable to several current 7.62 x 51 mm weapons by swapping out the barrels. Although partnered with a gun manufacturer for the current weapon replacement project, if the program gets cancelled (not uncommon for recent US Army acquisitions), it leaves True Velocity in the position of being able to enhance some existing weapons for a minimal cost.

7.62x51mm Rifles And Miniguns Adapted To Fire Longer-Range Polymer Cased 6.8mm Ammo In Tests

Ammunition maker True Velocity says it can give many guns that fire 7.62x51mm ammunition far better performance with just the swap of a barrel.

www.thedrive.com