Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best Infantry Fighting Vehicle
Kozzy    9/22/2004 9:32:38 PM
Might as well start wanking about IFVs. So what do you think is the best IFV out there? I would go for the CV9040, I like the big gun.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
doggtag    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - doggtag   10/5/2004 8:45:50 AM
..still sounds like too many Congressional and DoD people are still clinging to a Cold War mentality. No kidding the C-130 design has been around for yon half a century. But you notice: we aren't using 40-50 year old fighter plans and MBTs. So we need to get our next generation transport programs going at speed, as well. All the latest tech and electronic bells and whistles in our jets and tanks don't mean squat if we have logistics choke points. And one of the hopefuls on the Stryker program was that C-130s would move Strykers into unprepared strips that the USAF is still reluctant to use C-17s for. Seems to me, way too many people in Washington got their collective heads stuck in too many @sses, and need as rapid an extraction as possible. Perhaps though, since the nigh-50-year old Herc is still suitable for the job, we should go back to equipping the USAF with B-45s and F-86s, and give the Army some beefed-up M48 MBTs, M114 howitzers, and M52 SP guns. The Herc is a bygone template that needs to be retired. "Cool-looking" or whatever other nostalgic feelings people have about it, it's going to be more of a logistical choke point as we progress into the next few decades. Hopefully, the ATT (Advanced Theater Transport) won't get axed like so many other programs (but of course, so long as LockMart keeps the pocket money flowing to the right Congressmen and women, they'll have nothing to fear from a superior Boeing design.) (memo to current frontline troops: Deal with it, guys. Because of political wrangling and defense contract favoritism, you'll have to be content with what we give you, whether it's the most ideal tool for the job or not.) (Someone remind me what the "(I)" next to names on the ballot stands for: is that "Incumbent" or "Incompetent"?) .
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - doggtag   10/5/2004 9:11:59 AM
doggtag wrote: "And one of the hopefuls on the Stryker program was that C-130s would move Strykers into unprepared strips that the USAF is still reluctant to use C-17s for." This, IMHO, was U.S. Army fantasy. They never did the due diligence to determine if this idea would really work. (or oversold this capability to Congress)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - doggtag   10/5/2004 9:23:00 AM
Why doesnt America just buy A400 type aircraft then? Personal pride??
 
Quote    Reply

ya2    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - Yimmy   10/5/2004 9:27:26 AM
ofcourse.. lol thats why the m-8 is not a g-36
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - doggtag   10/5/2004 10:02:49 AM
Less pride and more politics. The U.S. won't buy a large number of ANY aircaft that isn't made in the U.S.A by an American company. To do so would be political suicide. Plus, buying aircraft costs a LOT of money when you factor in all the supporting infrastructure, training & such. It's not something you can wake up one day and just decide to do. Lastly, fast sealift and prepositioning are better ways to get large amounts of armor to a theater anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - ya2   10/5/2004 10:04:13 AM
Well, an XM-8 is NOT a G-35. I may be based on the G-35 action, but it is a significantly different animal.
 
Quote    Reply

ya2    RE:Dead On, yes. But for the crews, just plain dead. - ya2   10/5/2004 10:57:25 AM
same gun diffrent design btw it's g-36
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    IFV armor   10/5/2004 12:39:04 PM
Supposedly, some of the FCS variants might have titanium alloys instead of aluminum (but just how expensive will that make the per-vehicle price tag?) Advocates for the USMC's MEFFV (Marine Expeditionary Family of Fighting Vehicles, the FCS of the USMC) are suggesting cryo-milled aluminum alloys, which supposedly can be tailored to provide double-strength at the same weight (although it's still aluminum.) Apaches use some boron carbide armor for crew protection (layered with ballistic nylon and Kevlar.) (ballistic nylon? for that sheer, sexy look on the battlefield?) A hull composed of a single element (steel or aluminum) will never give the most ideal protection. Perhaps we need to adopt more Chobham-type (varying layers of differing density materials) armors for IFVs as well. An outer layer of face hardened steel plate, backed by structural aluminum and maybe a titanium/metal matrix composite, then finally backed with Kevlar anti-spall liners. Since IFVs generally never have more than 50mm/2inches of armor (at most), building layered protection may not seem ideal for these platforms, at first. But considering the protection levels that modern ballistic armors and glass can offer, layered protection for an IFV can provide just as adequate protection from small-to-medium arms fire as MBTs can survive from large-caliber cannon fire. But of course, this WILL add to overall cost per vehicle, even if it means the crew have a better survival rate..
 
Quote    Reply

ej    RE:Whats the problem with the C17    10/5/2004 1:33:01 PM
Why doesnt the Army/Airforce base their IFV weight requierment on the C17? In my opinion the weight limit for the FCS should be 2 combat ready vehicles+crew,ammo,etc per C17 . The C17 was designed to operate from unprepeared runways,whats the problem in using it that way? The airforce will have 180 C17 in a few years, 180 C17 can lift the same weight as 540 herc and for a longer range.More importantly ,the C17 can transport equipment to strategic distances while the C130 can only transport it within theatre, how will the FCS brigade get to the theather in the first place? (my bet is by ship).the whole army's "We will move an armored brigade/division anywhere in the world in a hercules in xx hours" can only work in a powerpoint presentation not in the real world .They should get a better plane to lift their forces or just drop the whole thing and go back to SF/airborne/marines as their early entry forces ,this way they will at least have an heavy armored force for a real war .
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Whats the problem with the C17    10/5/2004 6:26:25 PM
Well, the problem with the C-17 is that even though it's advertised to do small & rough strips, it's really too large and heavy for many of the potential airfields around the world. You fly in C-17s on some of these small strips and they'll quickly tear them to shreds. Plus, you have to consider the size and strength of available taxiways and parking areas. If the parking area isn't large enough to fit a C-17, then they'll have to unload on the taxiway or runway, which slows down landings & departures. The simple fact is, the C-130 can effectively go a lot more places than the C-17. This being said, the C-17 probably will be used more for intratheater lift than it has in the past. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Dec1999/1299airlift.asp
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics