US military AFV

Not invented here and the committees that order new stuff usually add a bunch of specific, nit-picky requirements that no COTS product can meet.

Also, I'd rather have Namers. Those things shrug off Kornets.

>>35002195
That's stupid, how are they supposed to inflate budgets by doing that?

File: P1010208_3.jpg (86KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x449px

They did trials during the GCV alternatives analysis, they found that the Namer provided amazing protection, but was extremely heavy. The CV90 couldn't carry the required number of soldiers, but could engage any threat short of an MBT. We should have just bought Namers, but added a 30 or 40mm Bushmaster since they're manufactured partly in the US.

File: M247_DIVAD.png (88KB, 989x772px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 989x772px

>>35002195
Because US army procurement is based of careful consideration: First they send out a design tender, then they carefully compare each vehicle put forward, from both American and foreign firms, and both on-the-shelf and planned designs. All these things are carefully considered, and all defense firms who answered the design brief are considered fairly and rationally, and the best vehicle is found.

Then they fuck that vehicle into a bin and pick whatever one produces the most jobs in the factory located in the home county of the politician overseeing the whole thing.

File: IMG_6288.jpg (69KB, 400x599px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x599px

>>35002257
I know right?

No pork?
No kickbacks?
Why bother?

Pic- A Namer

File: IMG_6156.png (175KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 320x320px

>>35002402
But we could build a factory to turn out US approved versions of existing afv.

Instead of wasting years In Committee trying to pick one.

File: IMG_0231.jpg (156KB, 1024x782px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x782px

>>35002195
Because there's nothing wrong with the Brad.

>>35002195
>>35002289
Should have bought
PUMAS
U
M
A
S

>>35002473
But it's getting old. We could use a new vehicle with new armor.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=09JgHxGkLdE

The finns started mounting tow's on there cv90's so that's not an issue.

File: IMG_6048.jpg (107KB, 1000x713px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x713px

>>35002536
You wut?

We already have wheeled abominations!

We don't need to add Italian mistakes to the list.

>Take namer
>Put it on a diet
>Keep the troop and crew configuration
>Slap a .50 or Mk19 on a CROWS mount
>???
>Somehow end up with a better protected, armed, and larger m113

Well shit.

>>35002195
>Buy off the shell
That's a big mistake.
1. Jobs disappear
2. In the time of war you're dependent on someone

File: A PUMA.jpg (173KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1200x800px

>>35002684

U wot.

File: gavin.jpg (96KB, 781x580px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 781x580px

>>35002465
Which they do do. The problem with that is it causes major butthurt politically and among the US defense contractors themselves, who would hate to see license fees and other associated shekels which could have gone into their pockets going abroad . Which is why the system emphasizes heavy fair-competition vetting of all firms, which allows a long drawn out process with much buttering-up by US manufacturers of whoever is responsible for the procurement. Their is always a vested interest to Buy American, often regardless of actual quality.

If the process was slimmed down, there would be a serious danger of US military procurement selecting manufacturers who actually made the best option at a reasonable price point. If this was combined with fair-competition regulations for procurement being got rid off, it would shithouse a lot of defense contractors who's main aim is to extract the most from the golden defense budget titty with the minimum amount of effort. It's a big bloated mess because we keep it that way, because an inefficient system keeps more people employed.

>>35002766

Off the shelf in this context means licencing a foreign design that is close enough to the requirements for production in the USA. This means that all the manufacturing jobs and capacity is kept safely in America. Some of the "foreign designs" are even already owned by American companies, like the Ajax vehicle family being made for the Brits belongs to General Dynamics, the American company that makes the Abrams tank.

>>35002437
Namers are great if you don't have to leave your borders.

>>35002636
If we are talking about new then why would the US buy CV90s?

>>35002536
>more expensive than a new MBT
>still no ATGMs

>>35003307
General Dynamics offering for MPF is an Ajax variant.

why don't we just do what the Israelis did and convert some M1 abrams that haven't been upgraded to current gen to troop carriers with an autocannon or missile rack on top

>>35002766
>>Buy off the shell
>That's a big mistake.
>1. Jobs disappear
>2. In the time of war you're dependent on someone
Israel might as well be our 51st state, especially re: defense industries.

>>35005385
We could build them here.

>>35003949
Because it's better.

Also they don't make the Brad anymore.

W-what about patria?

File: merkava.2nd.glacis.jpg (69KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 604x453px

>>35004599
They designed the Merkava with the engine in the front just so it could later be converted

>>35007134
No they didn't.

File: Puma_6x6.jpg (146KB, 500x326px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x326px

>>35002771

Italy's Puma is cuter

>>35005519
>Because it's better

Not really, and certainly not better than an actual new design.

>Also they don't make the Brad anymore.

Because the US already bought more than 2k, now the manufacturer of both offers upgrades instead.

>>35002771
Sexy as fuck
Can't wait for the hardkill system

>>35008236
Puma isn't getting one.

File: czechpandur.jpg (75KB, 736x630px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 736x630px

>>35007925

Pandurs II look awesome too.

>>35003932
So they are great for anyone who focus on stuff like you know... national defence?

>>35002289
>The CV90 couldn't carry the required number of soldiers
How many soldiers was required??? 10, 12?

>>35002289
>Not enough soldiers

Isnt 8 rather normal for IFVs?

>>35008739
American infantry team counts 9 soldiers and USMC have 13 soldiers in team.

>>35002206
Isn't that just due to APS ?

>>35002636

>Unironicaly links to Mike "The Gavin" Sparks.

That instantly invalidates any opinion you may have had.

>>35008904
Namers didn't have Trophy back in 2014

>>35008721
You are confusing internal policing with national defense.

>>35002636
>But it's getting old. We could use a new vehicle with new armor.

Just upgrade the armor and engine then.

>>35008891
>American infantry team counts 9 soldiers and USMC have 13 soldiers in team.
Well that disqualifies the Bradley then.

>>35008976
Not really. Most countries dont want to go fighting far away, they jsut dont want anyone to invade so they create systmes that are good for defending whatever terrain they have

>>35002437
Dat ass!

File: Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg (87KB, 800x634px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x634px

>>35009058
Bradley fits 7 soldiers. US Army platoon is composed of 3 infantry squads of 9 men so it makes 27 soldiers. Mechanised platoon have 4 Bradleys that can fit up to 28 soldiers. This was criticised by Congress that teams are divided between different vehicles so now they force Stryker platoons. Stryker can fit 9 soldiers.

>>35009369
Us structure is so weird.

>>35008700
>wheeled
That's a no from me dawg

File: 0f01490cdc51f283bd7e6067acb7d82d.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Turkish FNSS Pars 8X8. Look at this monstrosity 14 men capacity. 8 m long. Up to 24k kg.

>>35002289
Why even bother with the foot rest? It looks like it would just get in the way.

The Namer is great but it's way too damn big for what the US needs. A large vehicles works for Israel since they're not transporting it very far, but the US needs something lightweight and quickly transportable. Something like the M2 it already has and has been using for the past decades.

>>35012065
Without the turret, or at least with a longer and thinner one, it would look really sexy. Again, a very big vehicle for a country that would never have to conceivably take it very far.

File: 534534.jpg (63KB, 650x483px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 650x483px

>>35012146
>but the US needs something lightweight and quickly transportable
Something like M1A2 Abram tank? Go away Shinseki Evangelion, you are already fired.

>>35012286
You are highlighting that the US Army is well aware of the requirements to ship 70 ton vehicles around the world.

Might be why MPF will be light enough to pack at least 2 in a C-17.

>>35002195
Brads are pretty alright, outside of the fact that they're pretty fucking loud for scouting and so on. The TOW situation is another thing but I think they can fire their TOWs on the go if it was absolutely necessary but it's not done because the launcher can break.

>>35002771
Great but expensive as hell, we don't need them in great numbers but the US would require a lot of them obviously. Makes no sense for them to buy Pumas.

>>35008721
Namers are shit for national defense. They are only good for police actions in hostile cities full of insurgents.

>>35002195
We do use foreign designed weapons in many cases. Usually they are built here in the U.S. so we can control production and maintain industrial capacity. Examples include the M240 GPMG, Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle and the USMC's LAV-25.

File: id_ferret_700_03.jpg (71KB, 504x396px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 504x396px

>>35002195
Just a shit ton of these with T.O.W.

>>35012065

Bear in mind that's 14 men with Turkish kit.

The US has a lot more equipment and bulk to bring along with their teams, it's probably not much different inside from a Stryker once thats taken into consideration.

File: 1490731398213.gif (262KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 300x300px

>>35009369
>brad
>fits
Ahahahahahs

>>35013968
faggot

>>35012108
I just learned this like 3 weeks ago in infantry OSUT - those are so your feet aren't on the floor of the vehicle when something explodes underneath it, reducing casualties from IEDs and mines. At least according the specialist that was on the shitty assignment to teach privates about Bradleys.

File: read.jpg (13KB, 259x195px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x195px

>>35002771

> TFW the Bradley and the cv90 are both BAE products.

File: 1436730877342.jpg (44KB, 282x341px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 282x341px

>>35007134
speaking of engines why is the averages mbt's engine only spitting out 1500hp? I see people build engines that put out twice that in their garage that are also half the size of these tank engines

>>35014815
There is more to engine capability than just HP.

>>35014827
Right I see these funny car engines shit out something like 7000ft lb of torque and sure they're loud as hell but a abrams would fucking fly with that kind of muscle

>>35014844
And the engine would blow after 20 hours

>>35014815
Military doesn't use the most powerful fuel

>>35002636
>if its old its bad
hello lockheed

Problem with Bradley is that he is packed with so many AT options that he went from IFV to something between AFV and a f light tank.

File: bmp-64.jpg (523KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1920x1280px

Something unusual.
Ukrainian concept vehicle a BMP-64. Basically a heavy IFV build on T-64 frame. 12 soldiers, nice armament and protection and probably shitty mobility.

>>35011602
>Runflat wheels
>Better road speed.
>Faster to replace then Tracks.

>>35014815
>1500hp

That is HP @ RPM. It could be 2k, it could be 3k, but it will never exceed 4k RPM because the engine is governed.

The US military is just a money laundering scheme for General Dynamics, Raytheon etc

>>35016759
>probably shitty mobility
but I remember the T-64 having great mobility
unless you mean by IFV standards and not tank standards

>>35014734
To be fair the CV90 is originally built/designed by Hägglunds/Bofors. BAE just bought them later and continued the production.