gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3370
    MEMBERS
  • 192345
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

IFV with integral toilet?!   General Army topics

Started 28-Sep by stancrist; 792 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30-Sep

Refleks said:

HAPC/HIFV makes perfect sense for the US

I didn't say it didn't. I just said the Namer specifically doesn't.

Refleks said:

especially in today's environment, our doctrine is outdated.

Actually its the other way round. Recent experience showed that Western armor doctrine is spot on.

Refleks said:

developing our own equivalent based on M1 parts would be hideously expensive and take a decade or more. If we had a functional procurement system, maybe...

You have a point with the procurement system. But if there really would be a desire to procure such a system it could be developed very quickly. Especially if existing parts are used. If new capabilities would be introduced into the requirements of course developement would drag out.

Refleks said:

The track / suspension argument is the same one they said about AAV7, but they still made it to baghdad and did their jobs. It's uncompelling.

As far as I know the AAV7 did not do their job well which is why they have been withdrawn from service.

The steel tracks might not be so much a problem in theatre but for training use and upkeep they are a nightmare. Its simply not acceptable today that a unit that leaves the base for training causes the communities they travel trough to have to repair their roads. Even the damage to the bases themself will add up quick. Steel tracks also often cause HSE problems. Vibrations and noise.

Introducing a foreign AFV isn't an easy thing to do. Especially not if it differs so much from what is allready in use. The Namer is quite a bit heavier than the latest M1 versions. It might be the case the recovery, maintenance, transport and bridging equipment is not sufficient to support it.
Its definetly in another league as the M2 and M3. If its supposed to replace these the units need to be reequiped entirely to accomodate for that. In addition anything as to be brought up to US standards. Which in itself is not an easy task and usually requires conciderable reequiping and reworking. The cost savings during procurement most likely are not that big. The higher maintenance will quickly eat any cost advantage to a domestic design up. This is especially true for the large quantities procured by the US. For users that use low numbers this is different. But if we talk about four digit numbers of vehicles it makes very little sense to buy abroad. Not only the vehicle but any part or subassembly of it really.

Refleks

From: Refleks

30-Sep

These are perfectly reasonable arguments, I just don't believe them to be dealbreakers. The US military seems to agree with you so that trumps my fantasies unfortunately ;)

TOP