返回列表 发帖
美国陆军和陆战队战斗旅编制当中都没有看到防空部队了。似乎美国人对自己滴空军很放心哟。

另外史崔克反坦克车还在,不晓得用滴是什么蛋蛋。

TOP

回复 333# 幻客


TOW滴最新型号不用线岛滴话,是用激光驾束么?幻客有没有最新Tow滴介绍?另外Stryker用滴MITAS有没有详细滴资料?

TOP

美国人果然在走德国人和法国人正在走滴路,把轮式装甲车辆滴发展置于优先地位。履带式车辆将来在霉菌中滴地位越来越弱了。

TOP

你说的是这个吧:超轻型战车(ULCV)

防护设计要求不再有抗IED了,要求高速机动避免与敌接触!设计 ...
幻客 发表于 2014-1-30 02:54


不是说不要求集成通讯设备滴意思吧? 是说不要求附加通讯设备,也就是本身已经自备了通讯设备。

TOP

至于为啥回到这个路子上来呐?俺估计是因为美军基于阿富汗治安战争滴实践认为西方世界滴地面车辆厂商可以在很短时间内开发出防护力量可观滴巡逻车辆并迅速大量生产,而这些车辆在野战和特种作战时是用不上滴。所以无需在正规军装备建设上过多滴为这些装备操心。

这个和俺估计滴差不多。将来美军既不会在履带式车辆上投入过多研发,也不会太操心如何对付IED之类散兵游勇才会使用滴被动武器。他们将更关心轮式装甲车辆和能够实施精确打击以及快速反应滴特种作战车辆。

TOP

JLTV项目目前似乎依然顺利进行,悍马毕竟太老了,服役三十年也该退了。

TOP

赢得空军护卫天使GARRV的车型风暴SRTV厂家网站:

GMV 1.1是通用动力地面系统分部研制的产品,与通用动力 ...
幻客 发表于 2013-10-29 03:21


这俩飞行者好像的确是同一种或者类似产品,而且很多零件据说可以和现在滴悍马通用。

TOP

我觉得不一定,假设,2003年巴格达的守军顽强抵抗,或者美军攻打平壤,地面部队是使用史崔克入城 ...
@wmwx 发表于 2014-1-31 14:21


呵呵,将来美军地面部队滴主要战场之一确实会是城镇巷战,不过那是空中力量把平壤滴地面力量都砸回石器时代之后。至少他们目前是这么想滴。

TOP

M109这个老古董看来还得继续用下去。比它更老的古董M2地位也一直很稳固,多少新枪都没能顶替它。

TOP

美军远程打击火力越来越依赖空中力量了。炮兵更多作为地面步兵的近距离支援。

TOP

回复 536# 幻客

ULCV和LRV如果要求CH47能内置的话,不能太宽也不能太重。如果仅仅是82师装备,这个小东西单价低不了。

TOP

波音从天上杀到地面了?和骡马死磕么?啥时候造船啊?

TOP

AUSA 2014是啥时候在哪里举行的?对一般军事爱好者开放不?

TOP

刚搜了一下官网,发现2015年改成春季举办了,也不知道门票多少钱:
2015 AUSA Global Force Symposium and Exposition (formerly the Winter Symposium and Exposition)
Date:         3/31/2015 - 4/2/2015
City/State:         Huntsville, Alabama
Location:         The Von Braun Center

TOP

回复 562# 幻客

这个已经拖了很久了,俺都忘了AMPV是啥意思了...

BAE赢得了AMPV合同的消息,有啥可靠的网站消息披露吗?

TOP

不出所料,US marine对JLTV这种大家伙颇有微词。既要防护好,又要尺寸合适机动灵活,哪那么容易呢?

Pentagon testers: JLTV hinders marine amphibious assault operations

Key Points
The size and deployability of JLTVs is questioned by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation
Testers found that USMC amphibious assaults would suffer from the added time needed to deploy JLTVs
Pentagon testers have found that Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) prototypes are slow to deploy from ship to shore and, therefore, leaves US Marine Corps (USMC) units "vulnerable to threats".

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation annual report on the previous year's testing, released on 20 January, found that during developmental test/operational test (DT/OT) events, USMC units with JLTVs were able to execute amphibious assault missions, but were hampered by the new trucks' lack of deployability.

"The JLTVs have large visual signature and their slow manoeuvre time from ship to shore prevents a Marine Expeditionary Unit from executing assault missions with tactical surprise, increases the time to close combat power ashore, and renders the unit vulnerable to threats," the report said.

"Testing showed that JLTVs are slower to load, prepare for fording, and transition to manoeuvre ashore than HMMWV [Humvees]" that they are meant to replace, the document said. Testers explained that the issues were caused by the JLTV's overall larger size (vehicle suspensions are dropped so they can better fit in amphibious ships) and "delays that occur while awaiting suspension mode, and other vehicle adjustments" such as adjusting tyre pressure.

A spokesman for the Army Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support declined to comment on whether the office has developed a plan to address deficiencies outlined in the report.

The DT/OT events occurred in April 2014, with US Army and USMC units using CH-47F Chinook and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters for an air assault mission, and a USMC unit using Landing Craft Utility vessels for amphibious assault missions.

Testers found that units with JLTVs - and organic armour assets - can execute air assault missions.

However, "the three JLTV contractor vehicles were more difficult to rig, de-rig, and load weapons due to vehicle height and lack of vehicle handholds and footholds than HMMWV," the report said. "They had limited space to carry crew, mission essential equipment, weapons, and their sustainment load because of the small interior compartment."

The DT/OT revealed that JLTVs have better manoeuvrability in soft soil and better fording capability than legacy Humvees, but crew visibility is lower "because of smaller windows, placement of mission equipment, and positioning of window panels".

ANALYSIS
It is no surprise that JLTVs have a larger 'visual signature' than the smaller Humvee; they are indeed bigger vehicles and ride higher from the ground to protect against underbelly mine blasts.

However, it is notable that this larger size affects the speed at which marines can prepare the vehicles for battle (due to time spent raising the suspension, inflating tyres, and climbing to load equipment).

The USMC has at times appeared a reluctant customer for the JLTV as the corps is trying to get lighter and more mobile after years spent fighting land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with heavier platforms. Marine planners had accepted the size and weight trade-off to gain more protection, but it will be interesting to see if the deployability issue can be resolved or be justified.

Either way, the question must be answered soon because the USMC's planned 5,500 JLTVs are to be bought early in the production run and an initial operating capability is scheduled for fiscal year 2018.

TOP

2年前,第82空降师重新确立为美国陆军全球快反部队(GRF),为了确保这支部队能有足够的机动性和火力,美军 ...
幻客 发表于 2015-1-25 09:51


从图上看,这几种车型似乎都不能完整搭载9人的步兵班吧?身板太小了,6个人还勉强。

JLTV那么大身材,居然只能载4个人,严重怀疑陆军最后会不会接受。

TOP

USMC也怪可怜的。EFV取消以后,只能勉强采用轮式ACV来代替,水上速度只有8节不到。这样看来,中国的新型水陆两栖突击车领先他们不止一点点。

The US Marine Corps (USMC) is assessing industry responses to the second of two draft requests for proposals (RfPs) for an eight-wheeled amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) optimised for land operations and shoreline tactical mobility.

Procurement officials at Marine Corps Systems Command are expected to issue a final RfP for ACV Phase 1 Increment 1 (ACV 1.1) following discussions with prospective contractors during the week beginning 26 January.

Four industry teams are understood to be in contention, each proposing modified variants of off-the-shelf 8x8 armoured infantry carriers in service elsewhere: BAE Systems/Iveco (with their SuperAV vehicle), General Dynamics (LAV 6.0), Lockheed Martin/Patria (Havoc), and SAIC/ST Kinetics (Terrex II).

Having seen previous attempts to procure a replacement for its elderly Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs) thwarted by cost and performance requirement challenges, the USMC expects its current plans for an affordable ACV - costing no more than USD5 million apiece - to achieve initial operational capability in 2020 and full operational capability in 2023.

According to a request for information (RfI) published in April 2014, and associated documentation, the USMC is seeking a wheeled vehicle to provide protected mobility for 10-13 troops and three crew during ground operations (with a range of 300-500 miles) and shore-to-shore and riverine manoeuvres (up to 3 n miles). With a maximum swimming speed of 5-8 kt, the vehicle will be able to negotiate coastal waters with a 2 ft significant wave height and plunging surf of 4-6 ft.

Other key requirements include the provision of self-defence and direct fire support for dismounted troops via a remotely operated and stabilised 0.5-inch machine gun, with growth potential for a 30-40 mm weapon.

A first draft RfP for ACV 1.1 was published by the Program Executive Officer Land Systems/Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault in November 2014, with the second draft appearing on 8 January 2015. A full RfP is expected in the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, leading to the award of engineering, manufacturing, and development (EMD) contracts to two companies - each for 16 vehicles - in the first quarter of FY 2016.

The 32 EMD prototypes will integrate a number of government furnished items, including communications and navigation equipment; nuclear, biological, and chemical warning systems; and a marinised M153 CROWS II (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) fitted with a 0.5-inch M2 machine gun or Mk 19 40 mm grenade launcher.

Once ACV 1.1 developmental and operational testing is completed, the USMC will downselect to a single contractor in the second quarter of FY 2018 to meet the approved acquisition objective of 204 vehicles, comprising 56 low-rate initial production (LRIP) vehicles with options for the full rate production (FRP) of 148 vehicles.

The Integrated Program Plan includes an LRIP Lot 1 requirement for 26 vehicles in standard personnel carrier configuration (plus four vehicles for live-fire lethality and survivability trials). LRIP Lot 2 (FY 2019) will see the construction of 30 ACVs, with FRP Lots 1, 2, and 3 adding 30, 80, and 38 vehicles, respectively, in FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022.

Future plans include the procurement of 490 enhanced ACV 1.2 vehicles, reintroducing an organic over-the-horizon ship-to-shore capability and, in the longer term, an all-new ACV 2.0 intended for high-speed surface transit.

Meanwhile, the legacy AAVs will undergo an upgrade programme extending their lives to 2035; thereafter ACVs alone will provide the amphibious lift capability for 12 marine battalions.

COMMENT
Following cancellation of the advanced technology Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle in 2011, the USMC looked instead to the amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) programme to provide a more affordable high-water-speed replacement for its fleet of 1970s-vintage assault amphibious vehicles. As originally conceived, the tracked ACV would carry marines from an over-the-horizon (OTH) sea base to the beachhead at 13-15 kt and, once ashore, would have sufficient firepower, protection, and mobility to support an armoured advance.

When this initial ACV proposal also fell foul of funding constraints, the USMC decided in January 2014 to resurrect its wheeled Marine Personnel Carrier (development of which had been terminated in 2013) as the basis for a low-water-speed ACV 1.1 optimised for tactical manoeuvre along a coastline.

However, with fast connector vessels required to ferry ACV 1.1 units from OTH amphibious ships to shore, there is concern that such vessels may not be available in sufficient numbers to support a large-scale operation. The programme of record for the new Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) is 10 ships, while a sea base can support only a limited number of Landing Craft Air Cushion or their replacement Ship-to-Shore Connectors. Moreover, while a JHSV will embark large numbers of ACVs, the JHSVs are not combatants so would carry increased risk if deployed close to a contested landing zone; moreover, the use of helicopters or tiltrotor aircraft would leave marines without armoured protection or mobility once ashore.

More positively, the use of connectors (hovercraft or JHSVs) could allow the sea base to be located 100 n miles or more offshore, reducing its vulnerability to missile attack.

TOP

CH53K机舱能扛动的车辆有限,登岸的USMC毕竟不能仅仅依靠手中的轻武器,有装甲保护的直瞄和曲射火力还是需要的。而且在没有完全掌握制空权的情况下,从水面高速强攻有时候也是不得已的办法。

TOP

既没有车载网络集成要求,也没有核生化防御要求。那以后能加装吗?应该留了接口吧?

TOP

新加坡没有汽车工业,居然弄出一个性能不错滴特拉克丝,在许多人眼里,不合理么 ...

TOP

原来如此。这个蒂莫尼技术有限公司是何方神圣?爱尔兰自己没有啥军事工业,居然有这么个设计公司替他国设计装甲车辆?

TOP

新加坡弹丸之地,武备虽好,但必须抱别人大腿才真正踏实。和英美结盟是他们目前现实滴选择。目前和邻国关系也不错。

TOP

多谢幻客提供的链接。在国内上国外滴网真慢...

没想到蒂莫尼已经有50年历史了。不晓得他们滴前身是啥,一路怎样发展过来。看了看,蒂莫尼产品似乎军民通吃,以中重型车辆产品为主。

台湾人当然得要8轮滴了。现代装备越来越复杂,总之就是越来越大。想减重很不容易。

TOP

看来大口径顶置火炮无炮塔设计挑战还是蛮多滴,还是传统炮塔更踏实。

TOP

霉陆菌对于下一代IFV还是不死心,又拨了款给BAE和GD继续研发。只是这次不晓得最后会不会成正果。

US Army once again seeks new IFV designs

Daniel Wasserbly, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
04 June 2015

The US Army has awarded about USD57 million between BAE Systems Land and Armaments and General Dynamics Land Systems for conceptual design work on a future fighting vehicle (FFV) that could potentially replace the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.

Work on this effort is to run through November 2016.

"As part of the FFV Phase 1 effort, General Dynamics will develop design concepts for the next-generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle [IFV]," the company said in a 2 June statement. It will "conduct trade studies, requirements analysis, modelling and simulation [M&S], and assess technology capability and maturity to support each of the three design concepts".

General Dynamics was awarded USD28.267 million and BAE Systems was awarded USD28.868 million, both are cost-plus-fixed-fee multi-year incrementally funded contracts, according to a 29 May Pentagon announcement. All of BAE Systems' contract was obligated at the time from fiscal year 2014 (FY 2014) and FY 2015 research and development funding, and USD20 million of the General Dynamics contract was obligated from the same accounts.

In FY 2016 the army has requested USD49.3 million to research and develop FFV technologies; according to IHS Jane's analysis this represents just 0.21% of all vehicle modernisation spending in the budget proposal.

TOP

JLTV是否采用混合动力?

按照这个体量和成本,不可能全面替换悍马吧?估计悍马应该还会保留一部分。

TOP

图呐?......

TOP

你为啥认定橡胶履带就一定是整体式滴呐?

TOP

骡马就一纯军火公司,把F35玩砸了就没啥前途了。

TOP

美国人对地面装甲力量滴更新换代越来越漫不经心,连陆军防空也是奔着反导去了,野战机动防空根本不去操心。如果革命性滴武器比如电磁激光之类滴不小型化实用化滴话,俺估计M1和布雷德利系列要一直用到2050年了...

TOP

头一次从这个角度看AAV7A1. 它车顶是敞开的吗? 航渡时也是?

TOP

JLTV作为LRV是很容易滴事. 那么Flyer之类滴车子只会被SOCOM下属滴部队用作类似LRV滴车辆了? 陆军常规部队不会使用Flyer了吧?

TOP

怪事, 你咋知道没有具体要求?你没听说过就证明没要求了?

TOP

本帖最后由 @独孤求胜 于 2016-5-15 01:12 编辑

这个话题滴回帖已经这么多了, 好多东西都忘记了...

翻翻原来滴帖子, LRV主要是给82师这种IBCT用的, 那会不会个头太大了?本来不是说先定GMV再定LRV的么?没有用GMV滴底盘好奇怪. 陆军GMV现在定了用啥车子了么?好像还没有... 顺序乱了...

MPF有啥新消息?LRV定了MPF也该快定了吧

TOP

MPF项目最近有什么进展吗?

TOP

回复 852# 幻客


是啊回国了。去了趟代顿航展。

TOP

当然看到哦,感觉比F18F噪音低些。过几天发个专题帖子。

TOP

LAV是老食人鱼基础上发展起来的,GD干嘛一直抱着不放?和其它新平台比不显得过时?


Army的重装备看来还得M1,M2,M109 缝缝补补三十年。不到摩托寿命完蛋不发展新平台。

TOP

Army对伴随斯特莱客的曲射和直射火力有啥新想法没? 除了120迫之外, 就只有M777了? 直射火力没有了?

TOP

食人鱼V和老食人鱼III相比已经有很大变化了. LAV6.0的平台是老食人鱼的, 有啥特点呢能成为最先进轮式装甲技术的代表?升级后LAV6.0战斗全重达到了28.6吨, GD用它来竞标ACV 1.1算是失败滴... 不晓得下一阶段ACV1.1竞标啥时候开始?

MPF有啥新进展吗?还是Army根本不着急?

TOP

半人马座确实是不错的轮式火力平台; 而且似乎专为火力平台而来, 没有发展出同系列装甲运兵车?

TOP

LAV6.0果然落选了.

TOP

MPF如果要成功,必然得在网络化模块化上下功夫。没准弄出两个型号,轻型的装备105配给82师可以空投,重型的增加模块化装甲配备轻量化120用于一般的步兵旅。

TOP

我说的就是82师一类的空降师啊, 因为考虑空投, 所以不宜太重.

而一般的步兵旅, 反正主战装备直升机也装不下, 履带式的直射火力车辆可以重一点儿火炮口径大一点儿.

TOP

是啊不可能搞出两个底盘来也就是装甲模块化. 不知道火炮是否还是105? 如果是轻量化的120有没有可能? 这样的话直瞄火力弹药就统一了. 而曾经试验过的XM1111中程炮射导弹没准还能复活对步兵师的120火力做补充, 打击中近距离目标.

TOP

本帖最后由 @独孤求胜 于 2016-10-5 22:06 编辑

回复 921# 幻客


果然如俺估计的有人用上120的主炮了. 这样也便于Army统一弹药.

GD的这一款坦克, 动力装置是前置的吧? 底盘是哪一款装甲运兵车的变种?
和一般的坦克比炮塔位置太高了, 用120炮的话容易失稳吧? BAE那一款不晓得长什么样子.

刚刚搜了一下, 发现GD的这个MPF只能算是个演示项目, 号称表明GD能够用现有平台和技术迅速攒出一台符合Army要求的装备: 电子设备用M1的, 底盘用Ajax的, 火炮虽然还是120mm但用的是FCS的技术.

全重控制在28吨, 看来只能塞C17里了. 问题是能空投么?

TOP

回复 954# 幻客

AHW为啥就没有这种顾虑了?

TOP

我觉着也是, 任何常规载具只要足够大, 其实都可以带核弹头.
AHW本来最后要移交Navy的, 但是海军不是很积极的样子, 估计也和这个有关.

我们这不是讨论军车了吧?除非AHW可以车载...

TOP

好吧我们还是重新回到军车的讨论上来吧:

US Army kicks off competition to upgrade workhorse FMTV trucks

The US Army on 13 October solicited proposals for a competition to upgrade 2,400 platforms for the service's Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) programme.
Oshkosh took over the FMTV programme in 2010 after winning an initial 're-buy' competition against incumbent BAE Systems, and now the army is again seeking bidders for another re-buy.

Scott Davis, programme executive officer for Combat Support & Combat Service Support, told reporters on 4 October that the army hopes to get better ride quality and performance to accommodate heavier armour, and will look for better power generation and an added electronic backbone.

The request for proposals (RfP), published 13 October on the Federal Business Opportunities website, said the FMTV A2 programme would seek "to integrate higher capacity suspension, wheels, and tires; integrate underbody protection; increase engine power; integrate higher capacity alternator; integrate data bus upgrade; and integrate safety enhancements".

-----------------------------------------------

奥什科什不是已经垄断了Army的军车业务么? 这个项目什么意思, 是不是有点脱裤子放屁的样子?

TOP

史崔克是不是曾经被说过空调系统不行人机工效太差, 是吗?

TOP

本帖最后由 @独孤求胜 于 2016-12-17 20:48 编辑

感谢上帝, AMPV来了... ...





俺忍不住要想, 八个轮子的史崔克不会也象M113一样一活就是六十年吧?

The armored workhorse of the US Army, the M113 tracked carrier, first entered service in 1960. This morning, less than two years after signing a contract to replace the M113 in its roles as armored ambulance, mobile command post, and more, the Army and BAE Systems rolled out the first production-representative Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). It took 56 years of casualties in the under-armored M113, from Vietnam to Iraq, and the multi-billion-dollar implosion of the previous replacement program, the Future Combat Systems, but the Army has finally gotten in gear.

附件: 您需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?

TOP

AMPV车体如果是新锻造,用的材料是钢还是铝呢?发动机及传动系统和布雷德利一样吗?布雷德利似乎没听说过有更新动力装置?

TOP

马润的M1感觉总是比Army的要旧一个型号, 这是为啥呢?

TOP

CCWC是什么单词的缩写?

为啥还是用TOW呢?没觉得落伍么?对于TOW目前还没有研发新型号替换的计划?

TOP

用标枪是否更合适一些? 毕竟标枪个头小备蛋可以更多, 射后不理使用更灵活, 直接攻顶威力足够对于新出现的主动防御系统的规避探测能力更强, 而且还可以向上打飞行中的目标.

TOP

TOW式在Army实际使用过程中确实也就对付几个漏网之鱼零星的重装甲目标, 许多时候用来打击工事. 不过标枪其实也可以用来对付工事的, 得益于技术进步红外成像制导头能更精确的识别背景温差较低的目标了. 几年前俄国人的ATGM主要采用激光半主动或者激光驾束制导, 理由之一似乎就是ATGM许多时候都是用来对付工事这种冷目标的, 用红外成像无法有效识别. 现在看来其实是俄国人红外成像技术水平不过关, 或者其生产成本太高而已.

当然了用ATGM对付小地堡确实土豪了些, 用迫击炮或者火箭筒成本低多了.

TOP

回复 1034# 齐格飞


确实, 很少听说俄国人弄出来过激光半主动制导的东西. ATGM基本上都是无线电驾束制导或者激光驾束制导, 好像还有毫米波驾束制导的.

TOP

俺一直觉得现在的坦克面对空中火力和地面小型制导武器的威胁大多已经严重落后于时代, 但是用坦克进行巷战或者反游击作战无论如何都不合适. 以色列人的麦卡瓦4倒是不错, 可惜太沉了, 也就适合在以色列那种小范围冲突地域使用.

TOP

确实, 现代坦克再也不是传统意义上的钢甲猛兽了. 现代军队立体作战能力的形成, 不需要大面积的地面力量向着目标方向平行推进覆盖, 而是主要依靠远程精准的火力杀伤关键目标和有生力量.地面力量必须提高对战场的态势感知能力, 快速机动能力和中近距离的精准打击能力, 在火力打击完毕后迅速完成对关键节点的突击扫荡. 目前看120mm左右的火炮近距离打击的威力已经足够好了, 将来如果非要打击重装甲目标的话, 应该注重打击其薄弱环节, 诸如顶部和车尾等等; 稍加发展的智能化弹药完全可以在有限的体积之内做到这一点.

TOP

本帖最后由 @独孤求胜 于 2017-2-19 15:32 编辑

车身永远也不会嫌大. M2/M3都多少年了... 不过Army永远都对航空兵更上心, 如果V-280能够入役的话, 兵力投送能力将获得飞跃; 大规模地面兵力火力平推的模式已经逐步淡出了. 专业化步兵战车这类东西存在的必要性越来越低. 火力方面, 随着武器和电子设备越来越小型化, 将来在AMPV上架起个遥控武器站就足够了, 没必要专门再开发一款.地面直瞄重火力还是依托专业坦克更靠谱, 比如M1和MPF. 倒是网络化作战能力和无人机携载能力要加强.

TOP

Army的轻型坦克项目最近什么进展吗?

TOP

敢情陆战防空一体化系统是专门用来对付小无人机的?那么其他威胁不考虑吗?迫击炮弹,火箭弹,巡航导弹 ... ... ?

TOP

这样看JLTV宽度还不如悍马。不过也好理解,其发动机舱放在车头部位而不是车身中部了,乘员舱其实不窄。JLTV看起来就是个大个头的皮卡,美国人皮卡情节还真是的...

TOP

返回列表