Whenever there's talk about 'future tanks' keep in mind that it's likely only about Western future tank projects or even only about requirements.
Meanwhile East and South Asia is mass-producing the classic MBT and (thinly armoured) IFV categories and judging by the numbers they define the future of tanks.
I really wondered how long it would take GM to put tracks on the Stryker and try to market it as a viable option for the GCV. I don't know this for a fact - total speculation.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/
yep, it's true. Here is a short news article on it.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/milit...-seen-at-jblm/
So it is now very roughly about 42 tons similar to the heavierst German Puma variant which of course has a "turret".
At least the US has some scale to work with, which can't be said of the Italian efforts in this direction.
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"
General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
I wrote a comment here yesterday (deleted prior to submission).
The short version is that I think BAe and the U.S.Army should be kept away from AFV development in general for the next decade. Give other institutions a chance.
Oh, and I'd like to express my great relief that EADS does not merge with BAe.
I'm with Ken and many others here that the IFV or whatever you want to call it should be armored like a tank if it's fighting with tanks. keep the remote weapon station of at least a 50 caliber and and a useful troop load of 9+ and we just might have "weiner" here gents. I don't know if the entire vehicle was up armored or the added weight comes from the double-V hull and tracks. The other thing I like about this as a possible replacement for the M2 - cost (if it keeps our guys safe that is). The cost of the GCV pictured on this thread, but earlier posts was going to be between 9-11 million each - WTF! I would imagine this baby is gonna run 5-6 million. The more knowledeable here will know and can set me straight about its viability as a replacement for the M2.
A question for the more knowledgeable guys out there.
It seems that quite a few here think that infantry organized to fight alongside MBTs need a carrier with MBT-like qualities, especially armor and mobility, minus the firepower. The Merkava - Namer combination has been named as a good example. Considering the low numbers of vehicles purchased, especially in Europe, and the advantages of a mostly shared vehicle does it make sense to go with a standard front engine configuration for new MBT projects?
Thanks.
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"
General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks