Modern and advanced US armored vehicles

Modern and advanced US armored vehicles
Technological demonstrator of Combat Tactical Vehicle CTV (Combat Tactical Vehicle) in the transport position (minimum ground clearance and overall height 76,4 inch) in a test car center in Nevada (NATC). The NATC and the military contractors showed the automaker community how to replace the vehicle for the Marine Corps



Modern operations involving the US military represent a future that they could not have foreseen when building ground vehicles for post-Cold War operations. It was supposed to conduct special operations abroad, which would form the basis of operational activity after the Second World War. But the disappearance of the battlefield with a clear front line and relatively safe rear areas was the result of the appearance of guerrilla warfare tactics. No one expected that the threat of IEDs would be so serious, at least to the extent that the support vehicles had to turn into combat vehicles due to the threat of attacks from all sides, including attacks from below.

The hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan made the US military focus on the future of a network of combat and tactical wheeled vehicles connected by a network that would be harder and taller, better protected than it was seen for the canceled Battle Future Systems (FCS) program. As a result, operational and tactical mobility was changed to protect the crew and landing force. The new base vehicles for the army and marines will operate along with the upgraded, reconstructed and repaired versions of the existing machines, which the troops hope to have, although they will lose mobility due to additional armor, but will maintain levels of protection at the same level.

While the quick and successful acquisition of MRAP family machines was the biggest event lately, the army is currently focused on replacing BRADLEY, revising the structure of the HMMWV car fleet and replacing them partially with JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) lightweight tactical machines. ).

While a deep modernization program and corresponding improvements will extend the life of the BRADLEY, this very successful machine no longer matches the strategic, operational and tactical concepts of the army, partly due to the fact that its seven-person capacity with full equipment is currently insufficient . The army wants to replace it with a ground combat vehicle GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle), capable of delivering 9 soldiers to the battlefield. Initial requirements include underbody protection like the MRAP, side protection and off-road patency like the BRADLEY, urban mobility and operational mobility like the STRYKER. Other equally important goals include advanced networking capabilities, a unit cost of no more than 10,5 million dollars in 2010 prices of the year, and the delivery of the first production machines within seven years after the contract was issued.

After a refined risk assessment led to the cancellation of the initial request for GCV proposals in August 2010, the army issued a new request in November, and then in August 2011 issued technology development contracts to the teams headed by BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) . As part of this biennial phase, preliminary design was completed and preparations began for the development and production phase (EMD) of serial machines.

JLTV and GCV programs
General light tactical vehicle JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle)

JLTV is being developed by the US Army and Marine Corps as the successor to the 11 various HMMWV variants that have been in service since 1985. In February 2011 of the year, it was announced that the contract for the EMD phase would be delayed until January or February of 2012 due to the fact that the army changed its requirements on JLTV. The Defense Ministry planned to issue two contracts for the EMD phase, the duration of which was scheduled for the 24 month, but instead its duration was 48 months.

There are two variants of the JLTV: Combat Tactical Vehicle CTV (Combat Tactical Vehicle), which will carry 4 passengers and 3500 cargo of pounds, and Combat Support Vehicle (CSV), which will carry two people and 5100 cargo of pounds.

The budget request for 2012 for the JLTV year is 172,1 million dollars for Army R & D and 71,8 million dollars for Marine R & D, which is 243,9 million dollars as a result.

In response to an excessive increase in the cost, the leadership of the army and marines apparently put aside past differences, weakening the requirements for transportability and determining a lower cost per vehicle in 225 000 dollars. In addition, the EMD phase can be trimmed to 16 months, which will be 32 months as opposed to previous 48 months.

The army and the marines point out that, despite the established emphasis on reworking HMMWV and MRAP class machines instead of developing JLTV, there are restrictions regarding the level to which machines can be upgraded while still maintaining combat effectiveness.
Another possible topic to consider is the new, lower cost JLTV machine, which may come close to the cost of a converted HMMWV. This raises the question of what is better and more economical, whether to purchase “new” JLTV or “old”, but converted HMMWV cars.

The program of the US Army ground combat vehicle GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle)

Instead of a closed program on the ground combat vehicle MGV FCS, the army decided to develop a GCV that could be involved in its spectrum of army operations and would combine the combat experience gained in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army again issued a request for information on GCV 30 on November 2010 of the year and planned to begin the deployment of GCV in 2015 - 2017.

The budget request for 2012 for the GCV year amounted to 884,387 million dollars for R & D, reflecting a seven-month delay in the program. The National Defense Act allocated 2012 million dollars to the 449 year and stipulated that no more than 80% could be spent before the date the Minister of the Army presented a report to the defense committees containing the plans of the Minister of the Army to perform a dynamic analysis of alternative upgrades.

The possibility (availability) of the GCV also remains a key issue for Congress. The army argues that the average selling price per unit of GCV will be between 9 - 10,5 million dollars, and the average unit cost of the product will be 11 - 13 million dollars.

The Office of the Pentagon for evaluating programs and their cost estimates that the average cost of the product will be in the 16 area - 17 million. If the agency’s estimates are accurate, armies will need an extra 7,2 billion dollars to buy 1800 GCV machines.

Cost issues and schedule for GCV

Compliance even with the already revised requirements will consist of difficult trade-offs; the shadow of the 22 main army procurement programs, canceled between 1990 and 2010 over the years, hovers over GCV. The Office of Government Accountability, in a report published on October 26 of 2011 of the Year, entitled “Problems of Financing and Development of Promising Ground-Based Machines and Network Initiatives,” acknowledged various cancellation reasons and many common problems. They included: “weak cost studies or analysis of alternatives; unlimited requirements for weapons systems; underestimation of risks, especially levels of technological readiness; re-prioritization of feasibility; delayed schedules; and slow changes in requirements and technologies. ”

The Deputy Minister of Defense for Procurement, Technology and Procurement approved the program, but filed several objections, including an indication to expand the analysis of alternatives throughout the technological demonstration stage in order to reduce technical risks and production costs in the process of examining the trade-offs between specific capabilities and costs. The army should also evaluate existing combat assets to determine if a vehicle is an alternative to the new GCV or if certain capabilities of these vehicles can be included. Existing vehicles tested in this regard include the PUMA BMP from PSM Projekt System Management (a joint venture between Kraus-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall) and NAMER from Israel Military Industries (IMI). Contractors were also asked to do their own independent research themselves in order to obtain a complete comprehensive analysis of alternatives.


Currently, in addition to other projects, the US Army has strongly focused on replacing BRADLEY. Soldiers from the US 1 Assistance Brigade and the 17-Iraqi Division parachuted from the BRADLEY infantry combat vehicle during joint defensive exercises at the Besmayya test site 19 June 2011 of the year


The Government Accountability Office also concludes that the expected delivery of the first production vehicles seven years after issuing the contract is still risky, despite the army weakening some of the original GCV requirements and requesting contractors to use proven technology. Therefore, the Deputy Minister of Defense for Procurement, Technology and Procurement (USD / ATL) suggested the army to make the schedule more realistic, especially in light of the independent assessment provided for the review of the milestone-A stage, which is calculated from the higher development cost and 9 - 10 years to complete programs.

Due to an independent valuation, the purchase price was at least 30% higher than the price of the army, and the deputy minister said that long-term approval depends on matching the desired unit price in 13 million dollars.

The importance that the army connects with the program can be gathered from the compromises that the army is ready to make within the framework of its portfolio on the combat vehicle. Anticipating a reduction in funding in the near future, army officials intend to go ahead with the GCV project as planned, if necessary, even by reducing the modernization of the BRADLEY, ABRAMS and STRYKER fleet.

18 August 2011 company GD announced that it has received a contract for a technology demonstrator worth 439,7 million dollars, which is performed in collaboration with partners Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and power plant specialist Tognum America. The next day, BAE Systems announced its own contract for 449,9 million, which is executed with Northrop Grumman. On their prototypes, both teams must also install an RPG protection system and a test subsystem of mine protection.

The third team, which submitted an application under the leadership of SAIC consisting of KMW, Rheinmetall and Boeing, did not receive a contract for a technology demonstrator and issued an official protest to the Government Accountability Office, which was rejected on December 5 of 2011.

As the main contractor on the GCV development team, GDLS is solely responsible for managing the machine design program and integration. The company is also responsible for the design and chassis, the internal conditions of the amphibious and the crew compartments, along with the inherent safety and survivability.

The turret and all lethal and non-lethal weapons are the responsibility of Lockheed Martin along with “immersive training”; Raytheon is responsible for RPG protection, device integration beyond line of sight and sensors; GD C4 Systems leads network integration, integration of communications, computing and information; and Tognum America will provide a power unit, including an MTU diesel engine, transmission, and power generation system.

The BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman team offers a hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system. The company describes it as a robust, low-risk, cost-effective technology that allows for superior mobility with less mass than traditional systems. It also has the potential for future energy growth, as new technologies are integrated into the platform, the company said.

A key component of the hybrid powertrain is the EX-Drive electrical transmission from the Qinetiq team. Other members of the BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman Group for the GCV project are MTU, which provides a diesel engine and power generation systems; battery manufacturer Saft, responsible for energy storage; and iRobot, which integrates a ground robot with the machine and "improves future autonomous operations."



Lightweight tactical car SARATOGA from Navistar International, based on the company's extensive experience in this field, has a high degree of harmonization with field vehicles. The company also created and tested its patented geometric shape, which increases the survivability of the car. Given the combination of materials, design and body shape, Saratoga offers a more “durable” solution for the class of light tactical vehicles, while matching the transport height of 76 inches. The machine meets the most immediate needs and has traveled more than 25000 miles during sea trials. SARATOGA has a MAXXFORCE D6.0L V8 engine, automatic limited slip differentials, an Allison 2100 SP 6-SP automatic transmission, and an independent pneumatic suspension for improved handling


ABRAMS upgrades

The American army expects that the powerful ABRAMS tank manufactured by GDLS will remain in service for another decade. The newest digitized version, known as M1A2 SEPv2, entered service relatively recently in 2007, and in order to meet the new conditions, the ED and SA versions of the outdated M1A1 will pass through the integrated management program ABRAMS. MBT is also the subject of a series of incremental upgrades planned for the next decade. It is expected that, as with many other machines, maintaining the balance between size, weight, engine power and cooling system performance will be a serious task.

The System Enhancement Package (SEP) v2 includes a depleted uranium armor, digital command and control architecture, color digital maps, and new sensors. In recent modifications, additional bottom armor has already been included to repel mines and IEDs, DZ blocks for protection against cumulative projectiles and an explosion-proof seat for the driver. Also in SEPv2 installed external phone tank infantry and auxiliary power unit.

However, ABRAMS needs further modernization of its on-board power generation system and its off-road patency. The army wants to power the vetronics and sensors tank in silent mode for 12 hours, but for now using an intermediate solution of six lead-acid batteries, this period is 8 hours. The preferred solution is a sub-armored auxiliary power unit, the candidate for which is a fuel cell that extracts hydrogen from JP8 fuel and then combines it with oxygen to generate electric current and a by-product of water. Further planned upgrades for electricians include a built-in high-voltage generator to meet the expected increase in electrical loads from future upgrades, guidance sensors, network-centric communications, a sensor-shooter system, and vertical guidance guns and horizontal turret rotation.

Recent lessons have also highlighted the need for a main gun with a shorter recoil, for which the XM 360 E1 cannon is being developed. This gun, originally designed for the FCS machine, will improve the direct fire capabilities of the ABRAMS tank, while adding non-lethal weapons to increase the capabilities at the other end of the threat spectrum is discussed.

The additional weight of the new special equipment is expected to determine the need for more power and modernization of the transmission and suspension of the car.


MRAP MAXXPRO is in service with the 56 th brigade battle group STRYKER. It features a wire mesh reflector. This device is bolted from both sides of the machine for additional protection against hand grenades. The MRAP on the left does not yet have such an additional component. Curved plastic tubes running from the front to the back of the MRAP are designed to safely place low-hanging electrical wires above the machine.


Marines move from EFV project to ACV project

Meanwhile, marines come to an unexpected metamorphosis of their own vision of an amphibious future introduced into the Forward From the Sea doctrine, which provides for the landing of marines from helicopters, convertible planes V22 OSPREY and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle expeditionary combat vehicles from the horizon 25 nautical miles from the enemy coast in order to secure their landing ships and keep them at a safe distance. This requirement defined the concept of a huge and amazing EFV machine, which transforms from a boat moving at a speed of 25 knots, into a tracked infantry fighting vehicle without slowing down when entering the coast. But the concept of remoteness "fell" unable to withstand the proliferation of anti-ship long-range missiles, was demonstrated the illusion of safety of removal in 25 nautical miles. Instead of removing their landing ships even to an even greater distance in the Navy, they decided to position them closer to allow the infantry to reach the shore faster, relying on preemptive precision strikes, electronic warfare and defensive weapons in the fight against missile threats. This eliminates the need for high-speed EFV machine floats, which was the most desirable, but also problematic, issue during the development process. The EFV program was canceled in January 2011 of the year and was replaced by the less ambitious and slower ACV (Amphibious Combat Vehicle) Combat Floating Machine, through which the Marine Corps issued a request for 17 February 2011 information of the year demanding a response to 22 April 2011 of the year.

The Corps Program Manager analyzed the alternatives, which ended in the summer of 2012. In war games, the operational impact of the location of ships closer to the coast (12 nautical miles, not 25 nautical miles) and the use of slower vehicles will be evaluated. In addition, the requirements for ACV are similar to the requirements for EFV in that it is expected to transition from water to land "without a tactical pause" while maintaining the same pace with ABRAMS tanks. Also, the machine must be capable of destroying vehicles of a similar class, providing remote destruction and accurate fire from stabilized platforms and direct fire for infantry. Modular armor will adapt to the combat mission, and at the same time visual and thermal signatures (signs of visibility) will be reduced. Three options are offered: maneuverable / combat vehicle, command post and BREM.

According to current procurement plans, the ACV hull will be supplemented with new MPC (Marine Personnel Carrier) 8x8 and JLTV machines, along with an upgraded fleet of “honored” AAV machines (Amphibious Assault Vehicle) and LAV (Light Armored Vehicle). The requirements provide for two vehicles for the transportation and provision of a reinforced squad of 17 marines; each contains 8 or 9 fully equipped infantrymen and two crew members with protection superior to LAV protection. In addition to the transportation of personnel, options for command and evacuation tasks are also needed.

The program is currently at the stage of a technology demonstrator, it involves two competing teams, BAE Systems and Iveco against Lockheed Martin and Patria, the first offers the SUPER-AV option from Iveco and the second solution based on Patria AMV. The development and production phase was scheduled to begin in the 2012 year with initial operational availability in the 2018 year.


The Army and Marine Corps foresee a significant use of HMMWV in difficult tasks even after 2025, and they want to restore mobility and transportability, improve protection and reduce operating and maintenance costs.


Puzzle with light tactical machines

While performing a wide range of tasks, the army and the marines have relied on light tactical LTV (light tactical vehicles) vehicles and for the past three decades this has meant reliance on the HMMWV. However, the mass going to protect against RPGs and IEDs worsened the mobility and stability of the HMMWV. This forced the army and marines, as well as the command of special operations forces, as well as the Australian army to specify the JLTV specification, which could combine the off-road maneuverability of the original HMMWV with protection like the MRAP, while remaining light enough to be transported in C-130 and helicopters.

In accordance with the 2007 memorandum of the year issued by the Deputy Minister of Defense for Procurement, Technology and Supply, these branches of arms selected various suppliers for the technology demonstrator stage to reduce risks, evaluating candidates for JLTV from BAE Systems / Navistar, Lockheed Martin / BAE Systems and General Tactical Vehicles (consortium AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems), which supplied prototypes in May 2010.

By June 2011, the initial analysis was completed and the troops decided that the original requirements were not achievable and the machines would be too expensive. For example, it was confirmed that it was impossible to provide the required protection while maintaining transport in a helicopter, partly due to the fact that the armor remains heavier (and more expensive) than expected. As a result, the army and the marines reduced their transportability requirements by transferring some tasks from JLTV to HMMWV. Meanwhile, the requirements for the protection of the branches of troops were diverged, the army preferred elevated levels - equivalent to M-ATV, including the bottom protection, while the marines chose to retain the original protection like MRAP machines, separate bottom armor protection and reduce exposure from mines and IEDs due to more off-road driving time.

The troops now intend to make a request to the industry to provide for testing another set of prototype candidates made according to revised requirements. The central budget and control department criticized this approach for the lack of detailed project development and development tests, usually carried out earlier at the design and production stage, since there is a rather large risk of finding later that the machines are still fairly raw.

In 2010, the Main Budget Office estimated the cost of one JLTV machine according to the original specification between 306 000 and 332 000 dollars; estimates for the revised program have priced between 230 000 and 270 000 dollars. This cost prompted the Senate Armed Services Committee to recommend canceling JLTV and transferring its roles to other vehicles, including upgraded HMMWV jeeps. But the troops insisted, and Congress supported this in the defense expenditure law in 2012.

In the meantime, the request for proposals for restructuring the HMMWV fleet on the program of the upgraded machine with the advanced capabilities of MECV (Modernized Expanded Capability Vehicle) determines the price per piece 180 000 dollars plus a reservation. The army and infantry anticipate intensive HMMWV operation in harsh conditions and after 2025, and they want to regain mobility and transportability, improve protection and reduce operating and maintenance costs. Approximately 5700 of these machines with enhanced protection will be upgraded, and if financing allows, even more.

Four teams are currently competing, they are headed by AM General (the first manufacturer of HMMWV), BAE Systems, Oshkosh and finally Textron Systems in collaboration with Granite Tactical Vehicles, which created an explosive crew compartment known as the survivable tactical combat vehicle SCTV (Survivable Combat Tactical Vehicle) or “capsule”. Navistar Defense presented the International SARATOGA LTV at AUSA 2011 as a candidate for the MECV and JLTV programs.

Structural Blast Pipe

One of the vulnerabilities of the original HMMWV machine is the flat bottom, which creates a large area for the blast wave, “throwing” the machine upwards. Most solutions include mounting the V-shaped cab to the hull to deflect the blast wave around the car, but V-shaped hulls either reduce ground clearance or add height. The alternative studied by AM General is the so-called Structural Blast Tube, developed by the composite armor specialist Hardwire. This solution is a hole for the release of a blast wave up through the center of the machine, which forms a downward reaction force from the nozzles on the roof, creating resistance to lift. At the same time, such a solution may require some reduction in cabin space.



Offer from BAE Systems - HMMWV armored car with Integrated Smart V


BAE Systems calls its offer ISV (Integrated Smart V - Integrated Smart V), emphasizing the high level of harmonization with HMMWV, especially the components of the power drive, wheels, brakes and electricians placed in a monocoque V-shaped case. Armor is made of steel to reduce costs, and protection can be enhanced by modular kits. The total weight of the pounds 15400 leaves the ISV solution as part of the CHINOOK helicopter's payload.

The SCTV (Survivable Combat Tactical Vehicle) survivable tactical vehicle system created by the Textron / Granite team is the center of the new integrated crew armored monocoque V-capsule, which retains most of the controls, gears and drives available. SCTV does not affect tactical mobility and air transport HMMWV with installed subsystems and proven components, it provides a low center of gravity compared with the current armored HMMWV; this system is also installed faster compared to the existing protection.

Oshkosh emphasizes the advantages of its TAK-4 independent proven suspension. The TAK-4 suspension, according to Oshkosh, has excellent performance when driving on stones, potholes and rubble due to the excellent suspension travel, stability, body height and quality, it allows you to restore the previous load carrying capacity of the Humvee with bottom armor to 2500 pounds and total weight of 18000 pounds.

The company also offers options for restoring equipment installed in theaters, upgrading HMMWV machines and “zeroing out” their mileage. Optional upgrades include a more powerful engine and enhanced drive with a choice of gear ratios between axles and hubs and power brakes.

The army plans to issue contracts to no more than three developers, who then put the prototypes. The MECV program will consist of two phases. The first stage - R & D, testing and evaluation - will focus on the arms transporter variant, although data for the personnel transporter will also be analyzed. At the second stage, R & D contractors will complete production. The upgraded options at this stage will be the control center, the ATGM transporter, the weapon transporter and the personnel module.

Completing a recent review of US combat tactical vehicle programs, the Rand Corporation (a nonprofit organization specializing in improving the policies of American society through research and analysis) identified problems in defining and meeting the requirements, stressing that the military would “always have vehicles that were created for requirements other than those they themselves face, ”due to the diversity of possible threats, scenarios and solutions. Also, "it is unlikely that the machines will ever meet the full set of desired requirements", due to the contradictions between them. It is said that the “iron triangle of compromise is constant,” and the pressure here will always increase. The final machines "may not fully meet all the requirements, but may be quite satisfactory at the same time."

Materials used:
Military Technology 2 / 2013
www.baesystems.com
www.generaldynamics.com
www.navistar.com
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GRAY April 25 2014 08: 52 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Video topic:
    1. kplayer April 26 2014 21: 28 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      The emphasis in the film is placed on the initial lack of concept and formulated requirements for the car and, accordingly, the lengthy time it takes to create “do it, I don't know what”.
      An instructive filmman for us, the army has not had a modern infantry fighting vehicle for at least 20 years and some "Kurgan-25" is somewhere bogged down, and the BTR-82A is the most "advanced" thing to say to the infantry, uh! despite the fact that for one reason or another BMP-3M and BTR-90 Berezhok were buried.
      1. cdrt April 27 2014 02: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thanks for the nice review.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. avt
    avt April 25 2014 09: 27 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: GRAY
    Video topic:

    Yes, they played in cars quite specifically and do not know how to stop. I liked the easy way to cut loot and adapted the whole theory of cutting space into jeeps that are ready to book up to the tank level so that you don’t get out of the car into the field. All at once I recall the general whom Gritsenko played in , I’ve been fighting these blockheads for the second year, they think that the war can be won only by bombing! Their equipment will destroy them. "They don’t know the measures of the campaign and they don’t want to know, as well as rest in a battle not childish, not like a computer game and airsoft.
    1. PAM
      PAM April 25 2014 10: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Unfortunately, not only do they receive military equipment that does not meet modern requirements and objectives, but financing often goes past the “best ideas”.
      1. cosmos111 April 25 2014 13: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: PAM
        objectives, but funding often goes past the "best ideas."

        the best ideas in Russia, there are many more !!!

        but it all comes down to LOBBIES, who lobby for the interests of large manufacturers (((
        a small company from St. Petersburg, Design Bureau "Cayman" their armored car "Vepr", but in series this car .. I didn’t send and all work was minimized due to lack of funding ((((

        the bottom of the machine is protected by plates, V-shaped (((
        Chassis, on the nodes of the BTR-80 !!!!
        1. Mister X April 25 2014 22: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: cosmos111
          small company from St. Petersburg, CB "Cayman" their armored car "Vepr
          the bottom of the machine is protected by plates, V-shaped "

          Vepr - beskapotnik as Shishiga (GAZ-66) and KAMAZ.
          Even with Afgan, we know what happens when a mine explodes with a beskapotnik crew.
          1. cosmos111 April 26 2014 00: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Mister X
            Even with Afgan, we know what happens when a mine explodes with a beskapotnik crew.

            and what happens to them ????
            what are the mines ???? gentlemen and comrades, IEDs, which were used in Chechnya 1,2 ..... and now in Dagestan ((((
            "Typhoon K", what is the bonnet ???
        2. Skuto April 26 2014 00: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          armor plates 90 degrees is not good.
          1. clidon April 26 2014 09: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For the internal volume - great.
    2. cosmos111 April 25 2014 11: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: avt
      Yes, they played in cars quite specifically and do not know how to stop.

      this is not a game, this is war ((((
      cars (all kinds of armored cars are needed, all kinds of cars are important))))
      Alex Alexeev, as always at HIGH, article + !!!!
      on the topic, classic MRAP, is a thing of the past, mobile well-protected armored cars are replacing .... in the USA it's JLTV, with the use of hybrid power plants and compact booking (((
      but a certain cost in 220-250, thousand $, contradicts (composite materials and alloys are very expensive))))

      car of Britain, from composite alloys and protection at the level of MRAP II costs 100000, pound .. sterling !!!
      Rone car "Ocelot"
  3. Smiles to you
    Smiles to you April 25 2014 09: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I see nothing wrong with minimizing losses.
    We are lagging in that direction. If you have any interesting ideas. why not take a closer look and
    something to adopt ...
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 25 2014 10: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Smiles to You
      there are interesting ideas. why not take a closer look and
      something to adopt ...

      Yeah ... A particularly interesting idea is to place a unit for splitting fuel in the tank in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
      Tank mini nuclear landmine is a "brilliant" idea, for them crews from Latinos and Negros will probably be equipped only as kamikaze. laughing
    2. cosmos111 April 25 2014 13: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Smiles to You
      there are interesting ideas. why not take a closer look and
      something to adopt ..

      not when it’s not shameful to learn and copy something, but at its base, as China, India do (((
      blind copying, and the use of technology, using their materials, engines, suspension elements (((

      MRAP from TATA Motors-India, find 10 differences from South African manufacturers ???
  4. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 25 2014 10: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think that most likely, given the current economic situation in the United States and the US ILC statement on continued operation of the Humvee, it is most likely that the Humvee BA with Integrated Smart V as the main BA for the United States Weapons will go into mass production. And you can also assume that for the US Army, too, because. for “Humvee” all the necessary components and assemblies have long been produced, which will greatly simplify its mass production.

    Also in the article, this part of the material regarding the APU in MBT M1A2 Abrams is of particular interest:
    The preferred solution is a sub-armored auxiliary power unit, the candidate for which is a fuel cell that extracts hydrogen from JP8 fuel and then combines it with oxygen to generate electric current and a by-product of water.

    It is doubtful the usefulness of such an arrangement of “explosive” elements of the Armed Forces to increase the survivability of a tank on the battlefield, which is a BM operating at the forefront and has every chance that it can be destroyed in battle.

    For your information:
    JP-8 - aviation kerosene.

    JP-8 is a mixture of hydrocarbons with carbon numbers in the range of C9 to C16. It is used as fuel in the United States Air Force and other NATO air forces for aircraft. Commercial aircraft use a similar fuel called Jet-A, Jet-A1. In the US Navy, a close composition is used - JP-5, which differs from JP-8 in some additives. JP-8 is also widely used by the US military as fuel for tanks and other ground equipment, portable and mobile diesel generators (as a substitute for diesel fuel), and also as fuel in stoves and burners in camp kitchens. (Wikipedia)

    So that you burn better in them, gentlemen of the Americans. yes
    1. cosmos111 April 25 2014 13: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: wanderer_032
      it is less likely that BA Humvee with Integrated Smart V will go into mass production

      I disagree ::: the JLTV program, created to replace the HAMWI (((

      JLTV Development, Oshkosh Defense, Lockheed Martin and AM General ..

      the winner will most likely be Oshkosh, with its TAK-4i Oshkosh advanced, intelligent independent independent suspension, digitally controlled and Duramax engine ...


      with SUCH-4,70% improved off-road patency, ground clearance increased to 17 inches, maximum vehicle speed increased by 40%, braking system improved by 45%, load capacity increased by 1,25 tons, mileage increased by 500.000 miles (((((
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 25 2014 14: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: cosmos111
        I disagree ::: the JLTV program, created to replace the HAMWI (((


        And for what "shisha" will the Yankees perform this program?
        In order to establish serial production of new equipment, a lot of money is needed.
        Maybe you didn’t understand Andreei about which “Humvee” I wrote?
        And I wrote about him.



        "Humvee" with PMZ.
        Cheap and cheerful.
        Though now on the assembly line.
        1. cosmos111 April 25 2014 19: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wanderer_032
          "Humvee" with PMZ.
          Cheap and cheerful.

          I understood about what you write (((
          I wrote about the suspension: the Humvee suspension, can no longer cope with the increased mass and increased clearance of the car ((((
          Oshkosh, also 2011, dreadlocked a similar modification of Humvee with PMZ, but with its TAK-4 suspension ((((
          JLTV-sell and find the money (the $$$ printing press will print as needed), but Humvee will also upgrade ((((
          most likely it will be the "mother" AM General (((

          Humvee with TAK-4 Oshkosh suspension
  5. GRAY April 25 2014 10: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Structural Explosion Pipe? This is an interesting idea, if it explodes in the center of the bottom, it can and will help.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 25 2014 10: 55 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: GRAY
      Structural Blast Pipe


      This “ingenious” idea should look like this:



      I wonder what will happen to the people inside if the blast wave breaks the walls of this pipe?
      Probably all the "pipe" ... laughing
      1. clidon April 25 2014 11: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It will break if it exceeds the inherent degree of protection. If you hold six kilograms of explosives under the bottom is already "worth it." True, the pipe will "eat" the dimensions inside the machine - because its diameter should be very decent. But here already the test should give the answer ...
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 25 2014 12: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: clidon
          It will break if it exceeds the inherent degree of protection. If you hold six kilograms of explosives under the bottom is already "worth it"


          Then what is easier, lay 7-8 kg. and hello to the daisy. laughing
          And we really have something to lay ... And no pipes will help. yes
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 25 2014 12: 36 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            You can see, as they say, clearly:

            review of Russian mines

          2. clidon April 25 2014 13: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Why do we need tanks - any armor can still be pierced.
            1. Nikoha.2010 April 26 2014 08: 44 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: clidon
              Why do we need tanks - any armor can still be pierced.

              Alex! I strongly disagree with you! Question in topic, plus you for that, but you ask experienced people how tankers rescued them during sweeps in hot spots. Without a tank and a competent crew, it is difficult for the infantry, I myself (on an urgent basis) mechanic MTLB driver, I always respected and thanks now I say to ALL tank crews! hi
              1. clidon April 26 2014 10: 44 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I'm just for the reservation. This opponent above me indicates that it can be pierced and no matter how many kilograms of explosive it (the machine) holds.
          3. cosmos111 April 25 2014 14: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            Then what is easier, lay 7-8 kg. and hello to the daisy.


            8 - kg during testing, undermining: chassis from the Urals 4320, armored vehicles from Mahindra-BAE Systems (Caspir Mk6))))
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 25 2014 14: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Andrey, what does Kasspir have to do with it?
              We were talking about lighter cars.
              1. cosmos111 April 25 2014 20: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: wanderer_032
                what does "Kasspir" have to do with it?
                It's about lighter cars

                Yes, I agree Casper Mk6, not quite a good example (((
                another: the United States is developing new armored vehicles ... and not only the JLTV program, which will replace the no longer manufactured Hammer ((((
                the American Army's research center TARDEC, together with the English company Ricardo, developed in 2011, the design of a new army off-road vehicle (((((
                FED name, the result was the creation of an armored car ... with increased protection and significant fuel savings (((

                "FED Alpha" is adapted for military operations in the city, has good maneuverability and security at the level of STANAG 3, ballistic and mine protection .... aluminum armor, except for the cockpit, on the bottom of the V-shaped ....
      2. Bad_gr April 25 2014 21: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: wanderer_032
        This “ingenious” idea should look like this:


        Apparently, the driver should have something like a sight, which would be located above the mine precisely with a pipe, and not with some sort of crew member.
        1. clidon April 25 2014 22: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The shape of the bottom directs the energy of the explosion into the pipe and sides.
          1. cosmos111 April 26 2014 00: 44 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Bad_gr
            about a sight that would be located above the mine just a pipe,

            Quote: clidon
            The shape of the bottom directs the energy of the explosion into the pipe and sides.

            this idea, pure fantasy .... what work, what speed of a blast wave and fragments, when a mine is blown up, it’s supersonic (((

            this pipe, even if the bottom is made funnel-shaped, simply does not have time to miss the blast wave (simple experiment, pour water into the funnel, a lot of water, the funnel is filled with water))))
            and a blast wave, in this place there will be a break of the bottom !!!!

            there are only 2 solutions or a V-shape of the bottom, or a combined reservation of the bottom, with the installation of stiffeners (but this will make the chassis heavier at times)))
            1. clidon April 26 2014 10: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It will be necessary to divert away not all the energy, but only a part of it. So this is also the discharge of the same V shaped bottom, which removes the wave well from the edge of the sides, but is powerless in the center of the car.
              Of course, this is all a theory, but it’s also a test.
              1. cosmos111 April 26 2014 13: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: clidon
                but powerless in the center of the car.

                why, in the center is powerless ?????
                take a closer look at the Caspir MK6 test video, on the Ural 4320 chassis, the explosive charge, just in the center of the armored corps !!!
                Quote: cosmos111
                8 - kg during testing, undermining: chassis from the Urals 4320, armored vehicles from Mahindra-BAE Systems (Caspir Mk6))))
                1. clidon April 26 2014 16: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  take a closer look at the Caspir MK6 test video, on the Ural 4320 chassis, the explosive charge, just in the center of the armored corps !!!

                  And if you throw a cracker under the Lada, then the reservation is not necessary. ) Of course, with such gaps, no pipes should be installed. Then they want to reduce the pressure even faster, respectively, will be higher resistance.
    2. cosmos111 April 25 2014 14: 04 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: GRAY
      Structural Explosion Pipe?

      Quote: wanderer_032
      This, according to the "ingenious" plan, should look like this

      and the realities of the guerrilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan - TAK

      all armored hamers, in junk-in pieces !!!!
      1. APASUS April 26 2014 17: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: cosmos111
        all armored hamers, in junk-in pieces !!!!

        More than half the explosions far beyond 20 kg of explosives.
    3. Thompson April 25 2014 21: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: GRAY
      Structural Explosion Pipe? This is an interesting idea, if it explodes in the center of the bottom, it can and will help.

      Yeah. Make a wicket in the bottom according to the type of those in their westerns at the entrance to eateries!
      1. clidon April 25 2014 22: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        No, soon she will be above the pipe. Knockout panels are still on American tanks.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  6. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 25 2014 11: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to the amphibious machine for the US ILC, it can be said with a high degree of probability that its development is brought into a very convenient deadlock for theft of money. bully
    I feel from this "project" that the American bureaucrats of the weapons department (or whatever they have) will be fed for a long time from the cuts of state-owned cp-vs. fellow
    Most of these cp will be sawn on research of course. wink
  7. mrDimkaP April 25 2014 14: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Isn't CTV from karmageddon? wassat

    And what kind of passion for glass armored barn? Isn't it better to make a machine gun remotely controlled?
  8. zavesa01
    zavesa01 April 25 2014 16: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the first photo, the car has such rapids that it is only rolling on asphalt. Off the road, no, no.
  9. uzer 13 April 25 2014 16: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    When I see stamped suspension arms on an American armored car similar to Zhiguli and rubber covers on SHRUSs, I have bad thoughts. I must try hard to make such a poor design for such money.
    1. cosmos111 April 25 2014 21: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      in Minsk in 2013 r, the Moscow Plant of Chemical and Chemical Production presented a multi-purpose vehicle of the new 6001 family, which can niche between general-purpose trucks Ural and KamAZ (((
      the use of independent, hydropneumatic suspension of all wheels (((

      the developers took into account the American experience, the MZKT used a suspension very similar to TAK-4 ((((


      using such a suspension, you can create a full-fledged low-defense armored car, with excellent mobility, cross-country ability, similar to Oshkosh M-ATV ((((
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 26 2014 06: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: cosmos111
        using such a suspension, you can create a full-fledged mine-protected armored car, with excellent mobility, maneuverability


        Well, we have already developed such BAs.
        Cars of various classes, light - "Wolf", medium - "Bear", heavy - "Typhoon &
        quot ;.
        In addition, samples are being developed that are more serious, but other for the purpose of the armored vehicles: “Boomerang” and “Kurganets-25”, moreover, “Kurganets-25”, according to representatives of KMZ, is almost ready and is being tested.
        And also Andrei, you’re talking about the JLTV program, the discrepancy in the armament of equipment samples is not good. Because this creates big problems in providing units with spare parts and consumables.
        In addition, all sober-minded people seek to unify technology (less headache). So, a well-mastered Humvee has a greater chance of mass production than all of these prototypes from Navistar-International, Lockheed-Martin, etc.
  10. Free wind April 25 2014 17: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And what is stamped? Lada ride and ride !!!!! Despite the seeming wretchedness of the suspension, he himself often paid attention to it. Rubber covers on SHRUS, why are they bad? Do you need birch bark covers? Or from kirsa. or from tarpaulin? I have a Niva. Well, the cover has torn, well ... uh with it. There will be time to replace. I’ll wind 500 kilometers and without replacement. What are the problems?
    1. uzer 13 April 25 2014 21: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Get to know the UAZ front axle device, maybe it is better suited for off-road driving?
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 26 2014 18: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: uzer 13
        Get to know the UAZ front axle device, maybe it is better suited for off-road driving?


        For all UAZ bridges, they are a continuous beam and are attached to the frame by springs, in some cases by springs, but it is a suspension of a dependent type.
        Because of what, the car rolls strongly on slopes and has a tendency to tip over on its side, also when driving on rough roads you have to slow down to a minimum. Otherwise, the car kicks. For this, she got her nickname "goat".
        Based on this, we can clearly say that the independent suspension with drives of the SHRUS wheels is much smoother and better suited for off-road driving.
        1. cosmos111 April 26 2014 22: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wanderer_032
          Based on this, we can definitely say that an independent suspension with drives of SHRUS wheels is much more important and better suited for off-road driving.

          this is the main thing, although NP, even in production and operation (((
          everything, armored vehicles for special forces, airborne forces, MPs, must have high mobility and maneuverability, to be stable with side rolls, not an 25 grad ...
          these advantages are also given by NP (((still would be domestic automatic transmission))) and generally GUT ((((
          continue the topic: wheeled chassis
          MZKT- 6001, gross weight 14, tons, payload 10 tons (this is 10 tons of armor, hydropneumatic NP !!!!
          1. cosmos111 April 26 2014 22: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here is what I listed shown in the video !!!
            KamAZ and the Urals, Typhoons, need to be built with this suspension (((
  11. tchoni April 26 2014 10: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article was pleased for a number of reasons: 1) they are stolen the same (that means we are not alone in the universe) 2) they can’t understand the same thing because they still need to have something to protect it, or something to fly, roofing felts that would not be “shit” in the shit
  12. beifall
    beifall 1 May 2014 16: 41 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    BAE System where ?????????????
  13. waggish
    waggish 19 July 2014 17: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is what I wanted to download!