U.S. Army To Test Israeli, Swedish Tanks in New Mexico

[squidO]

We discurced it in the past and i still think arming Namer is going against concept and operational doctrine.Turret means training dedicated crew,different logistic etc.
And this is issue,not money.Granted,with infinite budget,IDF maybe will do it to some Namer as "nice to have" feature,but right now any attempt will probably have opposition inside IDF.
Arming Numer to IDF is like briefcase without handle,pain in back to carry,but don't want to throw away.IMO

They just were lucky, and managed to avoid temptation to turn it in "all-n-one" box, as it shown in this movie.

[Erki]

Here's the issue with it not being based on a US Chassis.

Say a roadwheel bearing fails does the DoD stock that size bearing? if it does great, if it doesnt your vehicle in NMC. I've seen this initially with the M249 when the original Flash Suppressor was damaged and it wasnt a DOD part yet. Didnt matter the M16A2 Flash Suppressor fit- the Damaged Guns were NMC for 4 months till we got the specified suppressor. Eventually they went to a M16 Suppressor for the Normal length barrel. When the EO Techs started being issued in 2004 we had some damaged that had to be sent to the factory for repair of broken plastic battery compartments because no spare parts were stocked then. If we have Namer the M88 recovery vehicles have to carry M1, Bradley and Namer spare links, sprockets, roadwheels... it needlessly complicates the loadplans, the logistics to introduce a totally different chassis.


Also the 9 Man Army squad is going nowhere soon. All US Army infantry doctrine is based upon the 9 men be they Airborne Rangers or Mech infantry. I'm old enough to have led the 11 man squad and remember the changeover

If I remember correctly the CV90 uses or can use the same tracks, roadwheels, drive wheels and tension wheels as the Bradley. The suspension may also have a certain degree of commonality. So if a CV90-based GCV becomes reality the Bradleys retained could have commonality with the new vehicle. A Namer-based vehicle could probably be built to have the same commonality with the M1. Foresight is required by the programme staff though.

Both vehicles should be able to carry the standard US 9-man squad after some alterations, BAE Systems showed how they were able to shorten the CV90 chassis for the British Army FRES SV competition so lenghtening it should not pose that big a difficulty leading to a 10-seat configuration. If the Armadillo-configuration with an OWS was to be used as opposed to a traditional manned turret setup, a 9-seat configuration should be possible using the standard chassis.

[Damian90]

@squid0

This movie (Pentagon Wars) is as far from reality as Star Wars are... really people, what will be more credible, a movie made by pacifist morons from Hollywood or a book written by professional historian that is writing about AFV's R&D history. Intead of this stupid money I suggest to read Richard P. Hunnicutt Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles. It is far more interesting, based on official documentation from TACOM archieves etc. etc. etc.

I would personally slap in face director of "Pentagon Wars", why? Because he is complete idiot.

@ LineDoggie

If we have Namer the M88 recovery vehicles have to carry M1, Bradley and Namer spare links, sprockets, roadwheels... it needlessly complicates the loadplans, the logistics to introduce a totally different chassis.

Indeed, this is why GDLS have here a serious edge over other competitors because the overall plan is to achieve parts commonality between M1 and GCV, and this is a very smart move to use advantage of being manufacturer of US Armed Forces MBT fleet.

Oh, one more thing, there was a question, why GCV is designed.

Well GCV will first completely replace M113's, and later when more GCV's will be manufactured, they will slowly replace IFV variant of M2 Bradley, the older M2's will be then converted in to specialized vehicles, like C2 vehicles, Medical treatment vehicles, mortar carriers, well they replace all currently used specialized variants of M113.

So GCV IFV will replace all currently used IFV's in HBCT in active US Army component, while the M2A3 and M2A2ODS-SA will be send to storage and/or ARNG units that will not recive GCV.

In a long term it is very possible that GCV program will expand for other types of vehicles, currently called secondary vehicle + new self propelled howitzer.

GCV will be a completely different vehicle than Namer, due to different structure, tactics and strategy of US Army. It will be used as normal IFV but with much better protection, vehicle and crew survivability.

Also GCV will most probably use unmanned turret, so we should not see it's protection as inferior to Namer for example, but more likely as a comparable one.

ALso why Namer will rather be not choose, mainly because it's use completely different components than M1 tanks, so this will be logistical nightmare, and it could be too expensive to modify it by GDLS to use a new common components.

We should remember that current GDLS modernization proposal of M1 tanks fleet (i.e. new Diesel engine, new hydrogas suspension and other improvements) should not be seen as separated to GCV program, but there is a very close connection between.

[Leaper]

@squid0

This movie (Pentagon Wars) is as far from reality as Star Wars are... really people, what will be more credible, a movie made by pacifist morons from Hollywood or a book written by professional historian that is writing about AFV's R&D history. Intead of this stupid money I suggest to read Richard P. Hunnicutt Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles. It is far more interesting, based on official documentation from TACOM archieves etc. etc. etc.

I would personally slap in face director of "Pentagon Wars", why? Because he is complete idiot.

@ LineDoggie



Indeed, this is why GDLS have here a serious edge over other competitors because the overall plan is to achieve parts commonality between M1 and GCV, and this is a very smart move to use advantage of being manufacturer of US Armed Forces MBT fleet.

Jesus christ dude it's a comedy movie! You need to get laid

[Damian90]

Jesus christ dude it's a comedy movie! You need to get laid

Comedy movie that too many people see as something serious. And I see military as something serious, it is not nececary good when people without smallest idea about reality start to make "comedy's" about that reality.

[Leaper]

So people are retards.
I bet hate Hotshot movies then

Seriously go to a Stripbar, my treat.

[Damian90]

I do not like to watch movies at all, books are better.

Stripbar? if You build one in my city, then I will go there with plesure.

[Camera]

(…)

ALso why Namer will rather be not choose, mainly because it's use completely different components than M1 tanks, so this will be logistical nightmare, and it could be too expensive to modify it by GDLS to use a new common components.

(…)

It's not an issue if they buy the Namer + the Merkava 4.

[squidO]

Jesus christ dude it's a comedy movie! You need to get laid

Yes, it's a comedy, but still there are many valid points in it.

[Damian90]

It's not an issue if they buy the Namer + the Merkava 4.

It will not happen, and Merkava Mk4 also have it's weak points in it's design... but I will stay quite, Marsh or some Israeli users will say that I break OPSEC... and yeah, it's better to be quite.

[Marsh]

Hellfish said -

"Interesting, thanks. So it is basically a heavily armored M113?"



Hi,
In essence yes. The IDF decided some time ago that they needed heavy APCs, ones where survivability and protection levels matched or even surpassed the protection levels of their MBTs. The rationale being that an MBT can dominate a target from a distance, whilst the heavy APC not only needs to be able to keep up with tanks, it needs to traverse the firezone on to or adjacent to its target whilst protecting its valuable infantry cargo. A different doctrine to other Westen countries, but one designed to cope with the heavy belts of Syrian defence lines situated in broken volcanoc terrain to the east of the Golan Heights. Several years ago when writing about the Namer's predecessor the Achzarit, I stated that a better name to use for that class of vehicle would be assault carrier rather than heavy APC.

As pointed out by other members, if funding were to be available, the IDF would equip a portion of its Namers with 30mm cannon and ATGM launchers. Even so, the majority would remain as heavy APCs.

Cheers
Marsh

[squidO]

GCV will be a completely different vehicle than Namer, due to different structure, tactics and strategy of US Army.

What is this, "the completely different tactics and strategy of US Army" exactly means?
Could you please enlighten us?

ALso why Namer will rather be not choose, mainly because it's use completely different components than M1 tanks, so this will be logistical nightmare, and it could be too expensive to modify it by GDLS to use a new common components.

So, GCV should only be based on M1, otherwise it will be logistical nightmare? This is your point?
If so, why do you think they spend money testing all these vehicles?

[Camera]

As Marsh explained it, the Namer is conceived for a battlefield saturated with anti armor weapons.
Its protection should also benefit it in an environment with heavy IEDs.
If the IDF finds it useful, I guess it could equip some of the Namers with an heavier weapons station and/or ATGMs, in a second stage, when it finds the funds for it.

[Damian90]

What is this, "the completely different tactics and strategy of US Army" exactly means?
Could you please enlighten us?

For example in Namer VC and gunner are mostly infantrymen, this is why there is only machine gun or automatic granade launcher RWS not turret with FCS and 30mm automatic cannon. It was explained earlier allready, Israelis due to their reasons have completely different approach to the problem compared to US Army or even other armys out there.

So, GCV should only be based on M1, otherwise it will be logistical nightmare? This is your point?
If so, why do you think they spend money testing all these vehicles?

No, not based, but have common components, this does not mean it should be based on tank. Hull itself is cheap, the problem are suspension, powerpack and other replaceable components mounted in hull, these should have as much commonality with other vehicles as possible. GDLS have here an edge, because they are M1's manufacturer and they can do this, right now, in the R&D phase, but this don't mean that they will win competition.

[Damian90]

http://translate.google.pl/translate...t-7521&act=url

Interesting development of situation. So it seems that GCV will replace M2 and AMPV will replace M113, hmmm.