eGun

Willkommen, Gast ( Anmelden | Registrierung )

Zurück zum Board Index
2 Seiten V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Leichte Panzer, Griffin, M551, M8 & co.
Warhammer
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 15:37 | Beitrag #31
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Major
Beiträge: 5.414



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 15.10.2002


Alles, aber das (außerhalb von Sparkys Fantasien...) sicherlich nicht.

Und zukünftig werden es 8 von 32 (25%) sein. Und die einzigen die in ihrer Zahl nicht reduziert werden.


--------------------
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
 
Kameratt
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 15:56 | Beitrag #32
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Hauptmann
Beiträge: 3.888



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 16.06.2012


Nur wenn man die Nationalgarde nicht berücksichtigt.
 
methos
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 17:25 | Beitrag #33
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Leutnant
Beiträge: 779



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 20.06.2010


Auch ohne Sparkys Einflüsse war und ist der Stryker immernoch umstritten. Schon bevor die ersten Einheiten mit dem Stryker beliefert wurden, gab es Kritik (unter anderem auch im US-Senat), da die Fahrzeuge nicht die Forderungen an Luftverlegbarkeit erfüllen konnten und im Vergleich zu den Alternativen (u.A. einer M113-KWS und dem Bionix aus Singapur) nicht ordentlich erprobt worden ist, ehe die US-Army den Stryker bestellte.

Im Endeffekt hat die US-Army den Stryker auch schon in großen Teilen aufgegeben. Nicht nur das MPF-Projekt steht in direkter Konkurrenz zu dem Stryker (MGS), sondern auch das Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV). Dort entschied sich die Army explizit gegen den Stryker (Rad- und Kettenversion). Besonders High-Tech ist die Lösung auf der Bradley-Chassis natürlich nicht, aber immernoch irgendwie besser als der Stryker.
 
der_finne
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 17:55 | Beitrag #34
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Leutnant
Beiträge: 665



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 25.04.2009


ZITAT(Warhammer @ 8. Oct 2016, 16:37) *
Alles, aber das (außerhalb von Sparkys Fantasien...) sicherlich nicht.

Und zukünftig werden es 8 von 32 (25%) sein. Und die einzigen die in ihrer Zahl nicht reduziert werden.


Afaik 7...


Edit:

Ach was solls-mal wieder ein wenig Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_comba...m#Modernization

"In July 2015, the Army announced the reduction of 2 additional BCTs as part of ongoing reductions to an endstrength of 450,000. In addition to the reduction, one active Stryker BCT will convert to an infantry BCT, and its vehicles will be used to convert an Army National Guard BCT from armored to Stryker. After the reductions, the 30 active BCTs will be composed of:[9]

9 armored brigade combat teams
7 Stryker brigade combat teams
7 infantry brigade combat teams
4 infantry brigade combat teams (airborne)
3 infantry brigade combat teams (air assault)"



Hier ein Artikel von 2003 mit allen von Methos angesprochenen Punkten (und mehr):

http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19114/

Der Beitrag wurde von der_finne bearbeitet: 8. Oct 2016, 18:13
 
Kameratt
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 18:31 | Beitrag #35
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Hauptmann
Beiträge: 3.888



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 16.06.2012


ZITAT(der_finne @ 8. Oct 2016, 18:55) *
9 armored brigade combat teams
7 Stryker brigade combat teams
7 infantry brigade combat teams
4 infantry brigade combat teams (airborne)
3 infantry brigade combat teams (air assault)"

Hinzu kommen noch 5 ABCT, 2, SBCT und 19 IBCT der Nationalgarde.
 
Warhammer
Beitrag 8. Oct 2016, 19:00 | Beitrag #36
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Major
Beiträge: 5.414



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 15.10.2002


Der Stryker ist sicherlich nicht der große Wurf, aber sie haben nunmal die SBCTs im Dienst.

Ein nicht abwurffähiger leichter Panzer auf Kette ist für mich in Zeiten knapper Kassen (auch bei der US Army) nicht zu rechtfertigen. Man kaufe einfach einen ordentlichen Radpanzer, damit kann man dann wenigstens alle SBCTs und IBCTs querschnittlich aufwerten.


--------------------
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
 
TrueKosmos
Beitrag 9. Oct 2016, 10:29 | Beitrag #37
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Oberleutnant
Beiträge: 1.819



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 24.10.2007


ZITAT(Slavomir @ 8. Oct 2016, 09:05) *
ZITAT(Schwabo Elite @ 7. Oct 2016, 22:30) *
ZITAT(General Gauder @ 7. Oct 2016, 21:47) *
In meinen Augen macht das ganze nur dann Sinn wenn m am den Leichten Panzer dann auch per Fallshirm abwerfen kann.
Ein MGS bringt keinen mehrwert an Kampfkraft braucht aber ein Flugfeld damit man es ins Einsatzgebiet verlegen kann


Dann sind wir beim Wiesel...

BMDs und die anderen verwandten Fahrzeuge, da gibt es auch einen leichten Panzerjäger.

wobei es nicht unbedingt ein Fahrzeug mit einer 105-120 mm Kanone sein muss um die Falis wirksam unterstützen zu können, die moderne 40 mm Munition für Autokanonen macht ordentlich Schaden und Einsatz so einer Kanonen würde es erlauben viel Masse in die Panzerung zu investieren. Überhaupt sieht man von direkten Duell gegen moderne MBTs ab kann man heute auch mittel schwere Fahrzeuge ausgezeihnet gegen alle anderen Bedrohungen schützen, allein die aktive Schutzsystemen die jetzt im Kommen sind.

Als Beispiel nenne ich hier auch den englischen Scimitar:
https://rokuth.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/...w=960&h=600

Und ich glaube Franzosen und Engländer hatten und haben in den letzen Jahren so paar Konzepte für Aufklärungsfahrzeuge mit einer 40 mm MK. Vielleicht so etwas übernehmen aber im Idealfall mit Befähigung zum Falschirmabwurf.
 
Warhammer
Beitrag 9. Oct 2016, 10:50 | Beitrag #38
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Major
Beiträge: 5.414



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 15.10.2002


Und entschieden haben sich die Briten für einen Trum von einem gepimpten ASCOD mit neuem 40mm Turm (da bin ich mir nicht mal sicher ob der in einen A400M passt) mit dem sie anscheinend ausgleichen wollen, dass sie seit dem Kalten Krieg bei der Army kaum etwas auf die Kette gekriegt haben.

Und die Franzosen für einen leichten Radspähpanzer der zwar nicht abwurffähig ist, aber dafür sowohl ihre leichteren Einheiten z.B. in Afrika gut ergänzen sollte und zugleich auch für Späh- und Abschirmaufgaben von schwereren Kräften zu gebrauchen ist.


--------------------
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
 
TrueKosmos
Beitrag 9. Oct 2016, 11:22 | Beitrag #39
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Oberleutnant
Beiträge: 1.819



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 24.10.2007


verschiedene Aufgaben bei beiden Fahrzeugen

Wobei ich beim Falschirmabwurf für die Falis eher EBRC auf Ketten bevorzugen würde da beim Falschirmabwurf in der Regel keine größere Märsche zurückgelegt werden müssen während Kettenfahrzeuge bessere Geländefähigkeiten haben und etwa der Seitenschutzen besser gestaltet werden kann.
 
Dave76
Beitrag 17. Oct 2016, 15:18 | Beitrag #40
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Oberstleutnant
Beiträge: 15.459



Gruppe: VIP
Mitglied seit: 13.01.2005


ZITAT
Army Light Tank Requirements Still Up in the Air

By Jon Harper
10/5/2016




The Army is still mulling the final requirements for its "mobile protected firepower" vehicle as it examines what industry has to offer, service officials said Oct. 4.

The platform would be a light tank, intended for infantry brigade combat teams. In August, the Army held an industry day at Fort Benning, Georgia, to discuss the project.

“We wanted to make sure we left our requirements at this stage broad enough so that we understood the full breadth of what might be possible,” said Maj. Gen. David Bassett, program executive officer for ground combat systems, at the Association of the United States Army annual convention in Washington, D.C.

“We’re trying to be open-minded about … [requirements for] a certain amount of effects, a certain amount of protection and a certain amount of mobility,” he added.

The service only discussed “high level requirements” at the industry day, said Col. James Schirmer, program manager for armored fighting vehicles.

Those include a 32-ton maximum weight, at least a 50 millimeter cannon and “certain levels” of protection, Bassett said. If the vehicle weighs close to 32 tons it would not be air-droppable, he noted.

The Army is divided about which capabilities are the most important for MPF, said Michael Peck, director of enterprise business development at General Dynamics Land Systems.

“The Army has different needs and each camp in the Army sees things a little bit differently,” he told National Defense at the exposition.

“You’ve got a camp that says, ‘I really want to drop it out of an airplane.’ You’ve got a camp that said, ‘That’s not as important to me as protection of the troops,’” he added. “So there’s … a lot of discussions still going on.”

The vehicle needs to be light enough so that it can operate in environments with poor roads and bridges or in cities with narrow streets, which means it needs to be lighter than an Abrams tank, Schirmer noted. It also needs to be tracked so that it can climb over rubble or drive over cars in urban environments.

“We very much want … to get the Army to speak definitively on requirements,” Bassett said.

Once those decisions are made, industry needs to be ready for a “fairly rapid production program,” he said.

“We’re not willing to wait for you to go through a lengthy bottom-up design process,” he said. “What we are going to do is to give you some time on your own to get a design ready to compete, and then we’ll evaluate that and do a fairly rapid engineering, manufacturing and development phase.”

The Army is looking to the Marine Corps’ amphibious combat vehicle 1.1 program as a guide, he said.

“They didn’t pay industry to design very much,” Bassett said. “They asked them to deliver it within a fairly short period of time. We’re trying to model that same kind of strategy.”

The Army’s joint light tactical vehicle program could also serve as a template for the source selection process, he noted.

Ideally the Army would like to have multiple competitors, he said. “Although we’re still in the early stages of laying out the total resources that will be necessary to do this, I think we can learn a lot from … JLTV where we benefited greatly from competition and having more than one vendor.”

Officials anticipate a milestone B decision in fiscal year 2019, with the goal of starting to equip infantry units in 2023.

“What that means is that industry has a couple years to get ready for that competition,” Bassett said. “We’re asking them to make that investment [in vehicle designs] and in exchange for that we have to be very confident about what our requirements are.”

At the AUSA exhibition, General Dynamics showed off its Griffin technology demonstrator, which looks like a light tank.

“We’ve been listening to the Army for three years on mobile protected firepower, and we got to the point where we thought we kind of understood what their needs were,” Peck said. “We decided it wasn’t valuable for us to talk about concepts. It was more valuable for us to show a concept.”

To construct the Griffin, the company combined a British Ajax armored fighting vehicle chassis, an aluminum version of an Abrams turret, and a lightweight cannon that was developed for the Future Combat Systems program.

“You’ve got mature technology in a tech demonstrator where all of the repair parts are already in peoples’ inventories. We’ve got ammo that’s already … in the inventory. You’ve got training on an Abrams turret that you’ve already done, so your crews are going to be very familiar with it. And you’ve leveraged all that investment in modernization” that has already been made, Peck said.

Using existing technologies in such a way would significantly lower the development risk for the MPF program, he said.

“Most of this stuff has already been tested by somebody at some point in time,” he said. “You’re putting some new things together [so] they’ll still have to do some tests. But the length of tests and the volume of tests will be greatly reduced. … There’s huge savings just because it’s something that’s already in their inventory.”

Army officials visited the General Dynamics booth where the demonstrator was on display and they provided feedback, Peck said.

“What they really liked was that it was familiar. It looks like an Abrams,” he said.

Officials were concerned about weight, he noted. But they also desire other capabilities that could necessitate tradeoffs.

“We told them you have some options and you need to make those decisions,” Peck said.

Bassett said he is "encouraged that General Dynamics would take the time and the money to kind of show their version of sort of the art of the possible by taking some of these existing vehicles and bringing them together in a way that helps us understand that requirement better."

“They started with the presumption that there’s an opportunity to leverage all the Army’s investment in Abrams,” he said, calling it “a pretty smart way” of offering a concept that service officials might not have thought of.

Bassett insisted that he is not giving any preference to one vendor’s solution over another.

Using existing technologies and having a competitive source selection process is key to controlling costs, he said.

“In a portfolio like this with the budget we have, we cannot afford to point a money gun at this problem,” he said. “We have got to be smart about how we buy.”

Photo: General Dynamics' Griffin technology demonstrator (Jon Harper)

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blo...st.aspx?ID=2321


--------------------
"avenidas/avenidas y flores/flores/flores y mujeres/avenidas/avenidas y mujeres/avenidas y flores y mujeres y/un admirador" - Eugen Gomringer
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." - Arthur C. Clarke
Proud member of Versoffener Sauhaufen™!
#natoforum
 
methos
Beitrag 17. Oct 2016, 21:21 | Beitrag #41
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Leutnant
Beiträge: 779



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 20.06.2010


Aktueller leichter Panzer aus China (VT-5):


Die chinesische Ausführung (seit 2011 geistern Bilder im Netz herum, wird vor allem in Tibet eingesetzt) hat stärkere Frontpanzerung, aber dafür schwächere Seitenpanzerung. Gewicht liegt dort angeblich bei 35 Tonnen.

Der Beitrag wurde von methos bearbeitet: 17. Oct 2016, 21:21
 
methos
Beitrag 2. Nov 2016, 15:10 | Beitrag #42
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Leutnant
Beiträge: 779



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 20.06.2010


Gehört vielleicht auch in das News-Thema:

Neuer leichter Panzer von PT Pindad (indonesische Firma), FNSS (türkischer Ableger von BAE Systems, gehört zu ~49% BAE) und CMI Defence:

ZITAT
Indo Defence 2016: FNSS and PT Pindad Show Medium Tank

With conceptual design complete, FNSS and PT Pindad are showcasing their jointly developed Modern Medium Weight Tank (MMWT) at INDODEFENCE 2016 in Jakarta this week.

“Turkey and Indonesia have been collaborating in the form of partnerships in their respective industries since 2010 and we initiated this project in 2014,” Project Manager Baris Aslan of the FNSS Business Development and Local Programmes Directorate told Mönch in Jakarta. “We have now begun construction of two prototype vehicles, one of which will be used as an evaluation vehicle here in Indonesia,” he confirmed.

FNSS focus in the programme has been on the platform (it is based on FNSS' new KAPLAN armoured fighting vehicle chassis, which it developed for Turkey’s anti-tank weapon carrying vehicle [WCV] programme and was contracted for it by Turkey’s SSM procurement department earlier this year) and automotive systems, while PT Pindad has exercised its expertise in managing the design (and now fabrication) process for the user systems. Programme partner CMI Defence manages the turret and associated 105mm weapon system for the MMWT.

“Production will be shared [between the partner companies] as and when an order is placed,” Aslan confirmed to Mönch. There is no formal requirement as yet from the army of either country, but sources close to the programme indicate that an initial order of 50 vehicles can be expected as the precursor to an eventual total that could rise to 400 or more vehicles. The first prototype is likely to be shown in public for the first time at IDEF next May, according to Aslan, and although there is not yet any formal evaluation planned by the Turkish army, the results of the Indonesian evaluation and test programme scheduled for next year are likely to produce results that will be shared with the respective government authorities.

MMWT offers weights between 32 and 35t, depending on the exact armour configuration selected. The new generation engine, coupled with a fully automatic electronically controlled transmission results in a high power-to-weight ratio in excess of 20bhp/t which, with six wheeled torsion bar suspension systems and double pinned tracks results in exceptional agility, according to the company.

Careful attention has been paid to the ergonomics of the design as well as the necessity for an efficient power management system. Customised crew seats provide for significant operational flexibility and an intelligent software-driven hydraulic fan cooling system for the engine compartment provides for optimum torque extraction and contributes to a 450km operational range. An advanced battery monitoring system also provides optimum power management and SilentWatch capabilities.

The aim behind MMWT is, “to provide users with a capability comparable to a main battle tank but at a lower weight and cost,” Aslan told MT, adding that the benefits already obvious include lower operating costs and much greater operational flexibility: the vehicle will be capable of dealing with most threat scenarios currently envisioned, in high ambient temperatures and in inimical conditions,


Quelle: Mönch

Bisher nur als 3D-Rendering:

Leichter Panzer, basierend auf dem türkischen Kaplan. Wird seit 2014 entwickelt. Gewicht zwischen 32 und 35 Tonnen, Turm und Waffenanlage stammt von CMI (sieht nach einem Cockerill CT-CV 105HP aus).



Rheinmetall bietet währendessen einen Marder als "leichten" Panzer an:

ZITAT
Indo Defence 2016: Rheinmetall Offers MARDER Medium Tank RI

Prominent in the outside display on the opening day of INDODEFENCE 2016 in Jakarta on 2 November is the demonstrator for the Rheinmetall Medium Tank RI (Republic of Indonesia). Based on the MARDER 1A3 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) chassis and designed to be interoperable with both MARDER and LEOPARD fleets within targeted nations, the RI is an advanced solution for medium weight, high firepower armoured vehicles.

“The Indonesian requirement is for a medium weight vehicle, under 35t, armed with a 105mm main armament in a three man turret,” Davor Bendin, Vice President Sales Asia/Australia told Mönch at the show. He added that the three man turret requirement is currently under consideration as the benefits of an auto-loader solution are evaluated by the user.

Rheinmetall’s solution offers a 105mm main gun in the Leonardo (ex-OTO-Melara) HITFACT II turret, capable of firing any standard NATO munition. Capable of mounting a 105mm or a 120mm gun, the turret can be configured for two- or three-man operation, entirely at the operator’s choice. The primary differences between the HITFACT II and its predecessor (HITFACT I) lie in a fully digital optronics sensor suite and electric turret drives. The HITFACT I is an already proven system, in service on CENTAURO vehicles for the Italian Army (400 vehicles,) the Spanish Army (84) and the Omani Royal Guard (9).

An optional fit for the turret is the GUARDIAN M3 jammer, according to company representatives at the show, though it is unclear whether this is an option being considered by Indonesia as yet. However, Bendin indicated that a formal evaluation of the MARDER RI will take place at an as yet undetermined date and that the company is confident that production and deliveries could begin very quickly after a selection process has been completed.


Quelle: Mönch




Gewicht liegt bei 35 Tonnen, der Hitfact-II-Turm stammt von Leonardo (früher Oto-Melara).

Der Beitrag wurde von methos bearbeitet: 2. Nov 2016, 15:10
 
Edding321
Beitrag 20. Dec 2018, 10:51 | Beitrag #43
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Fähnrich
Beiträge: 216



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 14.09.2016


Die US-Armee hat zwei Rüstungsunternehmer ausgewählt, um mit der Entwicklung eines leichten Tanks zu beginnen.
Die Armee vergab die Deals am 17. Dezember 2018 an BAE Systems und General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) im Wert von mehr als 375 Millionen Dollar bzw. 335 Millionen Dollar.


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25559...ese-two-designs
 
400plus
Beitrag 4. Jul 2019, 10:09 | Beitrag #44
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Hauptmann
Beiträge: 2.818



Gruppe: Members
Mitglied seit: 24.10.2010


Ab März beginnen die Tests für das US-"Mobile Protected Firepower"-Programm, unter anderem bei der 82. Luftlandedivision. Geplant ist mittelfristig, jeder Infanteriebrigade eine Kompanie von 14 leichten Panzern zu unterstellen. Die Abmessungen sind so, dass "mindestens" zwei in eine C-17 passen sollen.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_def...nk_in_2020.html

 
Praetorian
Beitrag 4. Jul 2019, 10:49 | Beitrag #45
+Quote PostProfile CardPM
Konteradmiral
Beiträge: 19.702



Gruppe: Globalmod.WHQ
Mitglied seit: 06.08.2002


ZITAT(400plus @ 4. Jul 2019, 11:09) *
Ab März beginnen die Tests für das US-"Mobile Protected Firepower"-Programm, unter anderem bei der 82. Luftlandedivision. Geplant ist mittelfristig, jeder Infanteriebrigade eine Kompanie von 14 leichten Panzern zu unterstellen. Die Abmessungen sind so, dass "mindestens" zwei in eine C-17 passen sollen.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_def...nk_in_2020.html

Zur Orientierung, im Dezember 2018 wurden BAE Systems und General Dynamics für die MPF-Vergleichserprobung vorausgewählt.
BAE wird mit einer technisch aktualisierten Version des M8 antreten, General Dynamics mit dem Griffin III, der im Grunde die dritte Generation der ASCOD-Plattform darstellt.


BAE


General Dynamics


--------------------
This just in: Beverly Hills 90210 - Cleveland Browns 3
 
 
 

2 Seiten V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic


1 Besucher lesen dieses Thema (Gäste: 1 | Anonyme Besucher: 0)
0 Mitglieder:




Vereinfachte Darstellung Aktuelles Datum: 16. December 2019 - 14:53