|
Mazz posted:Well this vehicle is just a turretless Bradley with a modified V-hull. BAE says they can tool the Bradley line to make these with a relatively easy transition.* *and once all other competing options are off the table, a few billion to grease the wheels, doubtless.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Looks like a giant ugly Bren
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Well this vehicle is just a turretless Bradley with a modified V-hull. BAE says they can tool the Bradley line to make these with a relatively easy transition. Yeah I mean these are just Bradleys without turrets, shouldn't be too difficult to modify. My point about the M1s was that the DoD was already getting a whole bunch of new build Abrams, so why not just get them in APC form? But I guess the design just makes them inherently unsuitable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah brain farted, meant Nordic states (Denmark I know had some, I think Norway or Sweden had some or a similar land based system) who intended to use them primarily in the relatively close confines of the Baltic (since a land based ASCM system only really works if the geography forces the ships close to the land). Finland has a bunch of Swedish RBS-15 systems mounted on trucks. For shits and giggles, we even still have (at least for the next 10-20 years or so) fixed coastal artillery emplacements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah brain farted, meant Nordic states (Denmark I know had some, I think Norway or Sweden had some or a similar land based system) who intended to use them primarily in the relatively close confines of the Baltic (since a land based ASCM system only really works if the geography forces the ships close to the land). The danish land based harpoons were only a thing in the 90s. After decommishioning the peder skram frigate we took their harpoons and mounted them on trucks. There was no land based asm in the danish armed forces before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Peder_Skram_%28F352%29
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Yeah I mean these are just Bradleys without turrets, shouldn't be too difficult to modify. My point about the M1s was that the DoD was already getting a whole bunch of new build Abrams, so why not just get them in APC form? But I guess the design just makes them inherently unsuitable. It'd need such a major redesign it probably wouldn't share that much in common with the M1. But if you still wanted to use the engine and the chasis the easiest answer I can think of might be to make the front the back and change the tanks transmission. I'm not sure where the driver'd go though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
There's absolutely no reason a light APC needs a turbine engine that has 4,000 lbs of torque and gets 3 gallons per mile. The new Bradley chassis line is being tooled right now, the APC version will just be the new Paladin without the howitzer on it. Believe it or not this actually makes a lot of sense and is probably going to be a good decision in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:There's absolutely no reason a light APC needs a turbine engine that has 4,000 lbs of torque and gets 3 gallons per mile. I feel like the Army hasn't made a good ground vehicle procurement decision since the M1, or maybe the HMMWV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah brain farted, meant Nordic states (Denmark I know had some, I think Norway or Sweden had some or a similar land based system) who intended to use them primarily in the relatively close confines of the Baltic (since a land based ASCM system only really works if the geography forces the ships close to the land). In Sweden we had a radar guided turbojet thing based on a French target drone, called Robot 08. It was operational in 1968. The same system was also used on the Halland class destroyers and was decommissioned together with them in the 80's. The navy (or the coastal artillery, really; the Swedish "marines" are a part of the navy) wanted a replacement though and so they took Saab's new "it's like the Harpoon but better, we promise" system, RBS 15, and bought a few batteries, each consisting of six launcher trucks with four tubes each, two C&C trucks and two radar trucks (plus logistics etc, of course). The battery had a lot of communications equipment and could use targeting data from both its own radars (which could be located up to 100 km from the launchers; the missile itself only had a range of about 70 km in its early incarnations) and from radars mounted on other units such as helicopters, ships or fixed installations. This was operational in the early 90's, but after five (5) years of service it was decided that the Russians weren't going to come after all and it was decommissioned again (and there has been a lot of complaining about this, especially recently what with the Russians being more and more active in the Baltic). Finland bought it too though and still have it in service, and so does Croatia. e: have a cheesy marketing video, because why not. Fun starts about 5 minutes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkEfLG2micU TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Yeah I mean these are just Bradleys without turrets, shouldn't be too difficult to modify. My point about the M1s was that the DoD was already getting a whole bunch of new build Abrams, so why not just get them in APC form? But I guess the design just makes them inherently unsuitable. Am Abrams isn't really a suitable platform at all to covert into a APC. It has very little empty space, what little space it does have is located in the turret itself, and most of it's major parts that make up the tank are spread evenly thought out the vehicle and can not be shifted or even moved at all to accommodate space room for troops. If it was done, it would be less of a modification and more of designing an entirely new E: beaten by a mile.  MrYenko posted:I feel like the Army hasn't made a good ground vehicle procurement decision since the M1, or maybe the HMMWV. In the last couple of decades, at least they're willing to drop or cancel projects that are going nowhere compared to other branches of the military. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I feel like the Army hasn't made a good ground vehicle procurement decision since the M1, or maybe the HMMWV. To be fair, while this decision seemingly makes a lot of sense from a commonality and using existing, proven hardware sense, it took them the FCS and GCV to get there. And it's still probably going to be at least a little hosed up, my guess being when they try to rewrite the requirement for the internals and run into electrical power or chassis weight limits in the middle of the program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I feel like the Army hasn't made a good ground vehicle procurement decision since the M1, or maybe the HMMWV. HIMARS and the MRAPs and the 777 and the 119 and all of the FMTVs and LPWS and maybe Avenger seem like relatively good decisions to me but opinions can vary I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:HIMARS and the MRAPs and the 777 and the 119 and all of the FMTVs and LPWS and maybe Avenger seem like relatively good decisions to me but opinions can vary I suppose. I would agree on Avenger until they canceled the SLAMRAAM. And not for any real reason other then it looked fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I would agree on Avenger until they canceled the SLAMRAAM. And not for any real reason other then it looked fantastic. We can blame the National Guard for that one like we should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I would agree on Avenger until they canceled the SLAMRAAM. And not for any real reason other then it looked fantastic. Just the name SLAMRAAM made it worth a green light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:HIMARS and the MRAPs and the 777 and the 119 and all of the FMTVs and LPWS and maybe Avenger seem like relatively good decisions to me but opinions can vary I suppose. The MRAP's seemed fine until the DoD was like "welp, Iraq is over, don't need these anymore give them to all the SWAT's"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Well when the alternative was getting chewed up in HMMWVs...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The MRAP's seemed fine until the DoD was like "welp, Iraq is over, don't need these anymore give them to all the SWAT's" What else were they going to do with them? Police have had armored cars since the '20s. If the alternative is having them rust uselessly in a boneyard, giving them away to police is preferable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Mazz posted:To be fair, while this decision seemingly makes a lot of sense from a commonality and using existing, proven hardware sense, it took them the FCS and GCV to get there. And it's still probably going to be at least a little hosed up, my guess being when they try to rewrite the requirement for the internals and run into electrical power or chassis weight limits in the middle of the program. I was speaking of FCS and GCV particularly. They've spent really a lot of money on really a lot of aborted projects to absolutely no result since the end of the Cold War. Conversely, I would certainly agree that they can at least see a money pit when it bites them in the face, unlike the other branches. I still wish we had bought some Comanches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Am Abrams isn't really a suitable platform at all to covert into a APC. It has very little empty space, what little space it does have is located in the turret itself, and most of it's major parts that make up the tank are spread evenly thought out the vehicle and can not be shifted or even moved at all to accommodate space room for troops. It has a pretty big engine IIRC. Just have it tow a UHaul trailer full of guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What else were they going to do with them? Why? Does your neighborhood have a big IED problem? In the boneyard, they don't cost us any more. The diesel and MX that Mayberry PD spends playing army mans comes out of the municipal coffers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What else were they going to do with them? The point isn't that they gave them away, it's that they spent all that money to develop a vehicle and then tossed them aside less than a decade later. Maybe I'm off base here but maybe they could've mothballed them or planned to use them in some capacity. Brushfire wars aren't going away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Also it wrecks lightly built rural roads, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What else were they going to do with them? No it really isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What else were they going to do with them? If police departments were dipshit-free / competently run, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, but we all know that isn't the case. I can see LAPD, NYPD and other large police departments getting them, I'm mildly terrified when some tiny as gently caress town in Texas gets them to play with. MrYenko posted:I still wish we had bought some Comanches. I guess some of the R&D carried forward at least, to the Stealthy Blackhawk or whatnot. We sunk what, $6 billion into that program? I remember a bad-rear end DOS/Win95 game though, at least, probably from Novalogic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:No it really isn't. Guys I think I know what to do with all those perfectly good A-10s we are just going to waste
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Oh good, another milsurp toy for local police departments to have in the background for drug bust press conferences, sit and rust in the motor pool lest it suck up precious money better spent on officer hours and, if they actually run it, another battering ram they forget to set the parking brake on so it rolls down the hill into done poor neighbor's house. The local five oh aren't rolling down the streets of Baghdad, they don't have a reasonable use for a mine resistant steel behemoth, barring the rare not-guy-in-hoodie-with-a-.22 bank robbery. Sell em off to foreign militaries, eccentric collectors who want to go mudding in the dumbest vehicle possible, sit em in a boneyard until our next ill advised adventure in some sandy shithole, or say gently caress it and donate them to high school auto shops. Just about anything is better than handing them out to cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The point isn't that they gave them away, it's that they spent all that money to develop a vehicle and then tossed them aside less than a decade later. Maybe I'm off base here but maybe they could've mothballed them or planned to use them in some capacity. Brushfire wars aren't going away. The army kept around 30% vehicles it bought with MRAP money fully active and put half of them in storage, only the remaining ~20% were disposed of or given to civilian law enforcement. I don't know what the USMC did. Giving these things to police is stupid and reckless and bad and I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
http://www.newson6.com/story/24887891/armored-vehicle-makes-its-way-to-bartlesville-police This and like a million other articles about bumfuck town Oklahoma police departments getting MRAPs almost all end with "Well the government was just giving them away so why not use it?" Sounds remarkably liberal there boys....
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Don't lie to us, you just want to build the Aero-Gavin; we've all thought about it. Man that dude. I can't even call a Gavin a "Gavin". I prefer just to say M113 because gently caress that guy and his psycho "gavin" ramblings. Suicide Watch posted:Why didn't they do a Namer-like APC using the M1 chassis? That way we could use the pre-existing line and Congress can be satisfied. General Dynamics pushed a Stryker chassis instead. They won't loving stop building M1's, preferring to park them in rows in the desert. I agree, give them something useful like an M1 chassis APC to build. Put a Bushy on top of it for good measure. priznat posted:DoD Procurement Mucky Muck Come over Do we have whatever this is in the USA? I swear I hauled something the other day on my train that looked like M113's, and not bradleys either. I thought maybe they were some sort of uparmored M113. They had that heavy riveting and plating on the sides. I remember that specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What else were they going to do with them? Except for maintenance costs. And for safety reasons, they should, but often don't, train their personnel how to use them. Having them rust uselessly in a boneyard is preferable to the cops spending scarce resources learning how to use and maintaining white-elephant equipment they'll never have an actual need for. http://www.policeone.com/police-products/vehicles/specialty/articles/6735349-The-hidden-hazards-of-MRAPs/ http://patch.com/california/banning-beaumont/draft_fe681730 http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/08/saginaw_county_sheriff_getting.html Besides, the alternative isn't having them rust uselessly in a boneyard. If nothing else, scrap them, and turn the scrap value into equipment that cops can actually use. Or maybe for non-police-related things. movax posted:If police departments were dipshit-free / competently run, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, but we all know that isn't the case. I can see LAPD, NYPD and other large police departments getting them, I'm mildly terrified when some tiny as gently caress town in Texas gets them to play with. The man speaks TRVTH: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6003239/police-militarization-in-ferguson quote:All this equipment is provided to police departments with little accompanying training or supervision. The ACLU's Kara Dansky, who authored their report on the rising militarization of law enforcement, said that she was "not aware of any training that the government provides in terms of use of the equipment," or of "any oversight in terms of safeguards regarding the use of the equipment by the Defense Department." Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to issue AeroGavin™ transports to police. No-knock raids turn into No-House raids. The War On Drugs is won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
e: actually this is a dumb derail, let's all agree that Podunk Oklahoma having an MRAP is silly and leave it at that
Mortabis fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
movax posted:If police departments were dipshit-free / competently run, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, but we all know that isn't the case. I can see LAPD, NYPD and other large police departments getting them, I'm mildly terrified when some tiny as gently caress town in Texas gets them to play with. You're thinking of the Comanche series, which was exceedingly bad rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Oh good, another milsurp toy for local police departments to have in the background for drug bust press conferences, sit and rust in the motor pool lest it suck up precious money better spent on officer hours and, if they actually run it, another battering ram they forget to set the parking brake on so it rolls down the hill into done poor neighbor's house. Here in Houston, we recently had a issue where the Police union was pressuring the city for a higher budget so they could have better benefits and increase the number of people the HPD could hire. No sooner were they given the money by the city that they spend it all on several MRAPs, and I'm not talking about those Oshkosh M-ATV, I'm talking about those expensive Buffalo MRAPs; the real kicker is they later had the gal to ask when are they going to get that money for benefit and hiring people. There's reason why Houston is home to some of the largest and most numerous private security firms in the US, and why people believe they'll replace our police force in the very near future.  B4Ctom1 posted:Do we have whatever this is in the USA? I swear I hauled something the other day on my train that looked like M113's, and not bradleys either. I thought maybe they were some sort of uparmored M113. They had that heavy riveting and plating on the sides. I remember that specifically. The new AMPV is a Bradley  and the Bradley is an up-scaled M113 with a turret.
Back Hack fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
E: double post
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:You're thinking of the Comanche series, which was exceedingly bad rear end. Was that the one with ~voxels~ because I always preferred the smooth polygon styling of the microprose games. The voxels looked detailed but often it was just a big mess. It was also kind of arcadey. Gunship 2000 and then the Jane's longbow games were so drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I had a Comanche/Ka-50 sim made by a company called Razorworks many years ago. One of the scenarios was a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This one: http://www.gog.com/game/comanche_vs_hokum
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
priznat posted:Was that the one with ~voxels~ because I always preferred the smooth polygon styling of the microprose games. The voxels looked detailed but often it was just a big mess. It was also kind of arcadey. Ya Novalogic did the voxel poo poo. I'd kill for another Armored Fist entry. RIP Microprose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
The death of the semi-casual sim games was such a shame. I can't be bothered to get into the DCS insanity. I think Eurofighter Typhoon was the last of the simulators you could fly without having a manual handy to start up the loving plane. And that was in 2001!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:37
|
|