Jump to content


Photo

Dragoon And Its Friends


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#41 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 29 August 2017 - 0939 AM

A view of the AVLB Stryker, the bridge of which features a "10 metre span and 50 tonne weight limit."

 

DIYjX_LXkAArPVr.jpg

 

The bridge was designed by a Canadian firm and will be used by the Canadian Army for its own LAV 6.0.  The US Army is also expected to take this model into service. Its distribution may be different, though, as a wheeled AVLB would also be useful for disaster relief.  So this model will likely be seen in the two US National Guard Stryker brigades sooner than some other new model Strykers.



#42 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1347 PM

A view of the AVLB Stryker, the bridge of which features a "10 metre span and 50 tonne weight limit."

 

 

 

The bridge was designed by a Canadian firm and will be used by the Canadian Army for its own LAV 6.0.  The US Army is also expected to take this model into service. Its distribution may be different, though, as a wheeled AVLB would also be useful for disaster relief.  So this model will likely be seen in the two US National Guard Stryker brigades sooner than some other new model Strykers.

 

Addendum: The Canadian firm building bridge launching mechanisms for the Stryker and LAV 6.0 is Pearson Engineering.

 

DIonzWAXUAAAJrh.jpg


Edited by Dark_Falcon, 01 September 2017 - 1347 PM.


#43 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1358 PM

How often can a 10m long bridge come into play?  Seems like such a pitifully short distance.  I'm guessing there's been some research done that shows a bridge of x length would be used y times in a combat environment.  10m is all they really need to justify this thing's existence?



#44 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1359 PM

Funny, I'd always assumed that Pearson was a UK company. I suppose that gets increasingly blurred when they're owned by a holding company that has its fingers in several international pies.

 

(The bridge looked familiar anyway)

 

http://www.pearson-e...unch-mechanism/



#45 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1404 PM

Probably ditches & hasty trenches. I wonder if it can be deployed as a ramp?

#46 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1630 PM

Probably ditches & hasty trenches. I wonder if it can be deployed as a ramp?

 

I'm sure it can.  10 meters is also wide enough to bridge creeks/small rivers and canals that can be deep enough to stop vehicles while not being very wide.



#47 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 01 September 2017 - 1639 PM

Funny, I'd always assumed that Pearson was a UK company. I suppose that gets increasingly blurred when they're owned by a holding company that has its fingers in several international pies.

 

(The bridge looked familiar anyway)

 

http://www.pearson-e...unch-mechanism/

 

I guess my impression that they were Canadian was based on the fact that the bridge launch mechanisms for Western Hemisphere users are made in Canada and Pearson originally approached the Canadian Army with the system.  The US Army became interested when it was clear that adaptation to the US version of Piranha would be quick and easy.



#48 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 02 September 2017 - 2305 PM

This photo is a few weeks old but it shows the M1130 Stryker Command Vehicle to excellent effect, on exercise alongside a Georgian BMP-2:

 

DGyhTGjWAAEysuG.jpg

 

Also of (minor) note is the BMP-2 having two of its side firing ports open.


Edited by Dark_Falcon, 02 September 2017 - 2306 PM.


#49 ThirteenFox

ThirteenFox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Fields, PA

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1532 PM

This photo is a few weeks old but it shows the M1130 Stryker Command Vehicle to excellent effect, on exercise alongside a Georgian BMP-2:

 

 

 

Also of (minor) note is the BMP-2 having two of its side firing ports open.

 

That is not an 1130.

 

 

it's a M1131 FSV.   The CV is based off of the standard 1126 ICV, and has the RWS.



#50 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 07 September 2017 - 0243 AM

How often can a 10m long bridge come into play?  Seems like such a pitifully short distance.  I'm guessing there's been some research done that shows a bridge of x length would be used y times in a combat environment.  10m is all they really need to justify this thing's existence?

blown highway passes, often ditches on sides of the road are too steep for even probably 8x8 APC-s.

so if you have to maneuver around craters or get off the road quickly ( as in not being caught by air /arty strike), probably short bridge is good enough. 

0zBLv6suKYbBxm_lK0jLWm.jpg

 

or here - http://www.delfi.ee/...tq64AZnEoyT5moA



#51 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 07 September 2017 - 0325 AM

Funny, I'd always assumed that Pearson was a UK company. I suppose that gets increasingly blurred when they're owned by a holding company that has its fingers in several international pies.

 

(The bridge looked familiar anyway)

 

http://www.pearson-e...unch-mechanism/

 

I think they used to be, back when they were making the Mineplows in the 1980's.. And judging by their location, this would appear to be another of those surviving offshoots of Vickers Armstrong.



#52 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 0825 AM

 

This photo is a few weeks old but it shows the M1130 Stryker Command Vehicle to excellent effect, on exercise alongside a Georgian BMP-2:

 

 

 

Also of (minor) note is the BMP-2 having two of its side firing ports open.

 

That is not an 1130.

 

 

it's a M1131 FSV.   The CV is based off of the standard 1126 ICV, and has the RWS.

 

 

It has the antennae of the CV and I had read that neither the M1130 nor the M1131 had an RWS,  Nor do I see the M1131 Fire Support Sensor system in the photo.  So I must ask for more info before I can make a correction, because as of now my IDing still seems solid to me.



#53 ThirteenFox

ThirteenFox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Fields, PA

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1611 PM

 

 

This photo is a few weeks old but it shows the M1130 Stryker Command Vehicle to excellent effect, on exercise alongside a Georgian BMP-2:

 

 

 

Also of (minor) note is the BMP-2 having two of its side firing ports open.

 

That is not an 1130.

 

 

it's a M1131 FSV.   The CV is based off of the standard 1126 ICV, and has the RWS.

 

 

It has the antennae of the CV and I had read that neither the M1130 nor the M1131 had an RWS,  Nor do I see the M1131 Fire Support Sensor system in the photo.  So I must ask for more info before I can make a correction, because as of now my IDing still seems solid to me.

 

 

Unfortunately, your "IDing" is far from solid.

 

The key indicator in your picture is the cupola - only two variants have it, the RV and FSV - the port side squad leader's roof hatch is also deleted on these variants.   The M2 in your photo is pintle-mounted, again unique to the RV/FSV.  The vehicle commander is operating the FS3 in the picture. 

 

 Antenna configuration is also unique to the FSV, - it has 4 radio whips (versus 2 in the RV) because of the multiplexer, two additional radios, and digital comms equipment the RV doesn't carry.  Either way, there should be 5 showing in the photo above - someone didn't attach the EPLRs antenna.

 

As I stated earlier, the CV is based off of the infantry carrier, which has the RWS.  Totally different beast.

 

I am not just pulling this out of my ass - I spent 12 years as an FO in three Stryker brigades, both active and National Guard.  I have operated and trained soldiers to operate every variant of the vehicle as a Stryker Master Trainer.



#54 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 07 September 2017 - 2000 PM

 

 

 

This photo is a few weeks old but it shows the M1130 Stryker Command Vehicle to excellent effect, on exercise alongside a Georgian BMP-2:

 

 

 

Also of (minor) note is the BMP-2 having two of its side firing ports open.

 

That is not an 1130.

 

 

it's a M1131 FSV.   The CV is based off of the standard 1126 ICV, and has the RWS.

 

 

It has the antennae of the CV and I had read that neither the M1130 nor the M1131 had an RWS,  Nor do I see the M1131 Fire Support Sensor system in the photo.  So I must ask for more info before I can make a correction, because as of now my IDing still seems solid to me.

 

 

Unfortunately, your "IDing" is far from solid.

 

The key indicator in your picture is the cupola - only two variants have it, the RV and FSV - the port side squad leader's roof hatch is also deleted on these variants.   The M2 in your photo is pintle-mounted, again unique to the RV/FSV.  The vehicle commander is operating the FS3 in the picture. 

 

 Antenna configuration is also unique to the FSV, - it has 4 radio whips (versus 2 in the RV) because of the multiplexer, two additional radios, and digital comms equipment the RV doesn't carry.  Either way, there should be 5 showing in the photo above - someone didn't attach the EPLRs antenna.

 

As I stated earlier, the CV is based off of the infantry carrier, which has the RWS.  Totally different beast.

 

I am not just pulling this out of my ass - I spent 12 years as an FO in three Stryker brigades, both active and National Guard.  I have operated and trained soldiers to operate every variant of the vehicle as a Stryker Master Trainer.

 

I studied some of the available visuals and you have the right of it:  The depicted Stryker is indeed a M1131 FSV.  I had made my ID based on a book I read and own a copy of but it is clear that the author was in error where the M1130 weapons mount is concerned. I was not trying to disparage your knowledge and I apologize if I did so.



#55 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 2338 PM

I'm not sure about the Stryker idea seen at DSEI this week, but it does show applied thought regarding recent uses of small and medium-sized UAVs by many nations and factions:

 

 

DJrUhPFXUAAQORt.jpg

 

DSEI 2017: T-REX makes an entrance into C-UAS

13th September 2017 - 02:09 GMT | by Andrew White in London

 

 

Orbital ATK has unveiled its Tactical Robotic Exterminator (T-REX) counter-unmanned aerial system (C-UAS) concept at DSEI in London.

 

The T-REX concept, displayed in a scale-model form factor at DSEI in London, has been designed for a US Department of Defense (DoD) urgent operational requirement to provide a mobile C-UAS solution integrated on board infantry and armoured fighting vehicles.

 

Orbital ATK’s T-REX concept comprises the integration of the Liteye mast-mounted C-UAS solution on board a Stryker vehicle with networked M230LF 30mm cannon. 

 

Speaking to Shephard, Orbital ATK’s Senior Business Development Manager for Armament Systems, Jeffrey Tipton, described how the T-REX would be demonstrated for the first-time next week in the US with the DoD’s Program Director for Counter-Rockets, Artillery and Mortars (PD C-RAM) expected to announce a contract sometime between January and March next year.

 

PC C-RAM is understood to be considering the procurement of ten C-UAS systems and with ten accompanying weapon systems for immediate integration and deployment into theatres, providing force protection for coalition troops with options for both kinetic and non-kinetic effectors.

 

The Liteye C-UAS solution comprises a variant of the Anti UAV Defence System (AUDS) developed by Chess Dynamics, Blighter Surveillance and Enterprise Control Systems. 

 

The holistic solution incorporates the Blighter A400 Series Air Security Radar; Hawkeye DS and Electro-Optical Video Tracker; and Directional RF Inhibitor, providing a capability to identify, track and disrupt UAS employed by enemy forces across the battlefield. 

 

‘Our new Liteye C-UAS system is designed to detect, track and defeat UAS engaged in hostile airborne surveillance and potentially malicious activity,’ company literature explained. ‘

 

Industry sources explained to Shephard that undisclosed numbers of mast-mounted AUDS systems have already been deployed to the Middle East in support of coalition operations against the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS). This has included mobile solutions mounted on FMTV protected vehicles.

 

However, this latest effort by the DoD will see the C-UAS system mounted on a fighting vehicle for the first time.

 

Additionally, Orbital ATK has started the development of a proximity fuse 30mm round, designed to specifically support C-UAS fire missions, Tipton added. Once networked to the C-UAS, it is envisioned that the 30mm cannon will fire three to five round bursts of fire in order to effectively neutralise target UASs. 

 

Also involved in the development of T-REX is EOS, which is working on the integration of the 30mm cannon remote weapon station towards the front end of the vehicle; as well as Pratt & Miller which has upgraded the suspension system of the Stryker IFV to support carriage of the 1,000lb mast-mounted C-UAS solution, which is fixed to the rear of the vehicle.

 

The article doesn't mention the horsepower of the engine of the proposed Stryker variant or if it will have the double-v bottom.  As for me, I think putting the C-UAS system on the same vehicle as a 30mm cannon is a potentially bad idea in a near-peer conflict as the cannon armed vehicles may find themselves ordered forward to deal with enemy IFVS also armed with with autocannons.  I'd rather link the C_UAS to Stryker Dragoons via a datalink (though that itself raises jamming risks).

 

What do others here think of this concept?



#56 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 15 September 2017 - 0139 AM

The Russkis have a cheap n cheerful manpack device. Several actually were shown in Armiya. You don't need a dedicated track.



#57 Wobbly Head

Wobbly Head

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moncton

Posted 15 September 2017 - 0814 AM

I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Fox armoured car the other night and was somewhat shocked to read that the Rarden 30mm was actually loaded with clips of 3 rounds each?  Somewhat echoing the post made previously considering dual-feeding; was there a real reason why the Rarden was clip-fed instead of belt-fed?  Was clip-loading a standard for all Rarden-armed AFV's?
 
Indeed the turret of a Scimitar light tank really is tiny.  Although the Soviets did manage to somehow shoehorn a 2A42 into a one-man turret and stick it onto a modified BMD-1 hull (and the BMD-2 was born).


All Rarden were clip loaded it's part of the gun design the gun could hold five rounds internally held horizontally above the gun so the crew could top off the internal magazine. For the size of rounds it was a very compact,powerful with little recoil and very accurate when paired with a good sight. The rate of fire wasn't so hot it was a long recoil so it couldn't be sped up so having it belt feed wouldn't really improve its rate of fire plus the belt feed mechanism would take up valuable space.

#58 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 2022 PM

How often can a 10m long bridge come into play?  Seems like such a pitifully short distance.  I'm guessing there's been some research done that shows a bridge of x length would be used y times in a combat environment.  10m is all they really need to justify this thing's existence?

Fairly common size for modular bridging here, 10, 20 and 40m lengths 



#59 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2017 - 0812 AM

I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Fox armoured car the other night and was somewhat shocked to read that the Rarden 30mm was actually loaded with clips of 3 rounds each?  Somewhat echoing the post made previously considering dual-feeding; was there a real reason why the Rarden was clip-fed instead of belt-fed?  Was clip-loading a standard for all Rarden-armed AFV's?
 
Indeed the turret of a Scimitar light tank really is tiny.  Although the Soviets did manage to somehow shoehorn a 2A42 into a one-man turret and stick it onto a modified BMD-1 hull (and the BMD-2 was born).

All Rarden were clip loaded it's part of the gun design the gun could hold five rounds internally held horizontally above the gun so the crew could top off the internal magazine. For the size of rounds it was a very compact,powerful with little recoil and very accurate when paired with a good sight. The rate of fire wasn't so hot it was a long recoil so it couldn't be sped up so having it belt feed wouldn't really improve its rate of fire plus the belt feed mechanism would take up valuable space.

But once a clip was loaded you couldn't switch ammunition types, correct? So, max out the load, you're screwed if you have switch from HE to AP, fir example.

#60 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 16 September 2017 - 0857 AM

I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Fox armoured car the other night and was somewhat shocked to read that the Rarden 30mm was actually loaded with clips of 3 rounds each?  Somewhat echoing the post made previously considering dual-feeding; was there a real reason why the Rarden was clip-fed instead of belt-fed?  Was clip-loading a standard for all Rarden-armed AFV's?
 
Indeed the turret of a Scimitar light tank really is tiny.  Although the Soviets did manage to somehow shoehorn a 2A42 into a one-man turret and stick it onto a modified BMD-1 hull (and the BMD-2 was born).

All Rarden were clip loaded it's part of the gun design the gun could hold five rounds internally held horizontally above the gun so the crew could top off the internal magazine. For the size of rounds it was a very compact,powerful with little recoil and very accurate when paired with a good sight. The rate of fire wasn't so hot it was a long recoil so it couldn't be sped up so having it belt feed wouldn't really improve its rate of fire plus the belt feed mechanism would take up valuable space.
Don't think long recoil action has anything to do with not being compatible with belt feeding, since the Russian 2A72 is belt fed, has a higher rate of fire, weighs less and is smaller than the RARDEN. Being clip fed is probably RARDEN's biggest weakness. In a small one-man turret, the gunner can't concentrate on engaging targets because he has to top up the cannon every few shots, and the low rate of fire makes it less efficient against infantry.

And as 2805662 pointed out, it's not a dual feed system, so if you're firing at an infantry platoon have HE loaded and the BMP attached to the platoon suddenly popped up, you have to fire 8 HE rounds at it before you can get to the AP, and you'd have to load the AP clip first. That's a lot of valuable time wasted doing nothing to the BMP...

Edited by Hakka, 16 September 2017 - 0900 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users