U.S. Army News:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Like many American weapons they're more flash then substance, ...

 If not all ...US weaponries.

AlfaT8 wrote:
...it's debatable how effective a top attack weapon like that is against an mushroom shaped turret, although it's effectiveness against the box shaped turret is practically guaranteed.

Indeed, I do not debunk Javelin, and I consider among the best anti tank weapons, nevertheless, I think like you this video is aimed for propaganda’s goals, in order to convince others not to buy any T-72 or russian's hardware. However, the recent T-72, and T-90's success in the streets of syrian cities against western anti-tank missiles prove that russian tanks are at least equal, if not better their western counterparts.

The problems with Javelin include low flight speed, enormous expense, plus the main problem is the guidance system.

Because the missiles seeker is basically a one shot thing... when used properly the seeker is destroyed the first time it is used basically so it is not a super high resolution expensive model... it is a simple downgraded relatively cheap model... of course when I say cheap I mean the price of a brand new sports car cheap... not two dollar watch cheap.

because it is made to be disposable the seeker is not amazing which means to be able to fire it in fire and forget mode you need a clear lock on the target before launch.

An uncamouflaged tank sitting out in the open with the engine running is an easy target... a tank partially behind cover with camo all over it is a much less likely target for a proper lock.

Also this is a short range ATGM... like Milan or Metis so 80-90 percent of the time troops use it against an enemy sniper position or a light bunker or room of a building... in which case the fire and forget capability is useless... but no cheaper.

This means that 80-90 percent of the time something like Metis or Dragon, which Javelin replaced is far superior and a fraction of the cost.

ARENA works by launching a munition into the air above the path of an incoming round and exploding sending a shower of fragments down at the incoming missile to detonate it several metres from the tank it is protecting. It directs its fragments down so it is not a danger to friendly forces for hundreds of metres in every direction... it would not take much to redesign the system to direct fragments up and down so a diving top attack missile could be engaged by the same munition...
Javelin is slow and not a particularly difficult target.

Camo systems like Nakidka would make the fire and forget capability of Javelin useless so it could only be used in SACLOS mode where the operator has to put the crosshairs on the target from launch to impact... in which case it is no better than Metis... just 100 times more expensive and therefore only available in much smaller numbers.

The low cost of Metis means it can be bought in large numbers and used against soft and hard targets all over the battlefield... a much better system.

And that video was claimed to include HE in the turret to "simulate" the T-72 being loaded with ammo. In other words a hollywood fireworks display...

nemrod wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Like many American weapons they're more flash then substance, ...

 If not all ...US weaponries.

AlfaT8 wrote:
...it's debatable how effective a top attack weapon like that is against an mushroom shaped turret, although it's effectiveness against the box shaped turret is practically guaranteed.

Indeed, I do not debunk Javelin, and I consider among the best anti tank weapons, nevertheless, I think like you this video is aimed for propaganda’s goals, in order to convince others not to buy any T-72 or russian's hardware. However, the recent T-72, and T-90's success in the streets of syrian cities against western anti-tank missiles prove that russian tanks are at least equal, if not better their western counterparts.

Indeed, primary data show that Russian tanks performed really well in Syrian conflict unlike e.g. Merkava which was considered one of the very best but performed abysmally against much inferior weaponry.

US Army developing rocket-assisted artillery rounds for extended range

http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/02/us-army-developing-rocket-assisted-artillery-round-for-extended-range/

U.S. Army Armored Multipurpose Vehicle program advancing

http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/28/u-s-army-armored-multipurpose-vehicle-program-advancing/

US Army to Test New Turret on Stryker Combat Vehicle

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/20161007/1046078060/army-to-test-new-turret.html

I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see for that one.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see  for that one.

Wrong wording choice I used, I meant if they would decide so. If they do I think it would be worth it.

At a time when the 30mm is being replaced as an IFV weapon in Russia by a 57mm gun I would think they would be looking at a least at a 35mm or 40mm gun... or a combination like the BMP-3 with a 100mm calibre and a light auto cannon to cover a range of targets...

US Army’s New Long-Range Missile Battery Could Double as Anti-Ship Weapon

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610151046351143-us-army-long-range-anti-ship/

The end of the history of the helicopter AH-64 Apache?

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2191449.html

Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

Sounds dumb, i get the idea, have extra armor that can be moved to targeted areas of the tank to improved it's survival, problem is, will that same extra armor be usable later and if not you're still gonna need more armor when the adversary targets other parts of the tank, it would make more sense to just make sure that "extra" armor's added to the entire tank, in short this won't resolve any weight or size problem (unless some mad scientist made an actual working force field), IMO.

What happened to that "Electromagnetic Reactive Armour" they were working on, to expensive?

And their excuse for not simply using an APS sounds like crap, they just want something they can call their own, and then say they're better than everyone else, not sure whether this can be called a superiority complex.

Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

"One interesting wrinkle is that the Army proposal explicitly prohibits any solution that is an active protection system. That means the Army wants to avoid anything like Israel's Trophy gear, which shoots down incoming rockets with a shotgun blast of projectiles. The Army suggests one reason for this stipulation when it calls for moveable armor that “shall not pose harm to dismounted personnel.” - Right, meanwhile using SABOT is totally fine, it can just cut your head off if you are in front or on the side of the tank. Even saw it landing behind the tank.

Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.

Militarov wrote:

Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.

Call me a cynic but that sounds perfect for the US MIC. Lots of R&D and way down the line, production, profits.

JohninMK wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.

Call me a cynic but that sounds perfect for the US MIC. Lots of R&D and way down the line, production, profits.

Well, see how i look at it, money spent on R&D is never wasted. Even if you do not get the goal you intended you might use parts of that research for other things and projects, maybe even make civilian/industrial applications etc. However... this thing i am not sure about, mainly because as you said "down the line" will probably be "dooooooowwwn the line", in like 20 years.

I think you underestimate the ability to waste taxpayers money...

I remember in the 1980s a US Army contract regarding head wounds.

They gave a US university a contract for 1 million dollars to do a series of tests... they took 200 cats and shot them in the head and then tried to keep them alive with various life support machines.

The findings were that brain injury often leads to a condition where the patient can only be kept alive with life support machines.

Money well spent I say.

Next they were going to spend 6 million dollars doing a follow up experiment with 200 dogs getting shot in the head...

GarryB wrote:I think you underestimate the ability to waste taxpayers money...

I remember in the 1980s a US Army contract regarding head wounds.

They gave a US university a contract for 1 million dollars to do a series of tests... they took 200 cats and shot them in the head and then tried to keep them alive with various life support machines.

The findings were that brain injury often leads to a condition where the patient can only be kept alive with life support machines.

Money well spent I say.

Next they were going to spend 6 million dollars doing a follow up experiment with 200 dogs getting shot in the head...

Well, see. That testing (i never heard of that one tho i must say) probably led to many improvements in life support equipment threatment. I mean, if in WW2 armies did not invest so much in battlefield poison gases we wouldnt have good antidotes today either and alot of protective equipment that we use in industry today. I mean, there is always some good return, even in horrid investments.

Yeah.. that is what they say to get funding... they don't know what they might learn until the experiment is over. The problem is that the Universities don't care what they research, they just want something to research... that is what they do.

I rather doubt anything they learned from either study furthered the science of keeping bodies alive.... that is fairly straightforward... the purpose was to determine recovery from traumatic brain injury and the answer was no.

Those researchers might go on to cure cancer but in these experiments the actual value of the money spent was zero... that is why I read about the case... it was part of a study on waste within the military where the military had money it needed to spend or it would not get the same money next year, and the university just wanted a research fund... they didn't care about whether the results were useful or not. A list of cases regarding wasted spending within the army. I am sure it would dwarf the encyclopaedia Britannica in size... Of course why should any branch of government be any different...

Actually I remember Bill Gunston talking in an article about the misuse of Top Secret status. He mentioned a missile prototype he and others were working on for the British MOD. Every test the thing flew up its ramp and then exploded. No Telemetry the whole thing was destroyed. After several exploded with no information about what was the problem the programme was quietly closed and everyone had to sign to not divulge anything... each test was eye wateringly expensive... there were no secrets to leak except how much taxpayers money was being wasted with no return.

BAE Systems Presents First AMPV Prototype to US Army

The AMPV is based on designs for the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzer.

The US Army will replace the pistols Beretta M9 with Sig Sauer P320

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2389560.html

Anyone translate this into English?

The US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) to protect tanks from missile fire has completed its initial integration stage, Northrop Grumman, one of the two main contractors on the program, announced in a news release.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The initial integration for the US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) soft-kill demonstrator was completed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

The MAPS system is designed to quickly plug-and-play new technologies including radars, infra-red sensors, jammers, decoys and hard-kill shooters, according to published reports.

"Using Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor and Northrop Grumman's sensor and countermeasure systems, the team completed initial integration in preparation for full system demonstrations on an M1 Abrams tank in 2017," the release stated.

Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor controls and processes information from multiple sensors and countermeasures, and drives information displays, the release added.

JohninMK wrote:Anyone translate this into English?

The US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) to protect tanks from missile fire has completed its initial integration stage, Northrop Grumman, one of the two main contractors on the program, announced in a news release.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The initial integration for the US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) soft-kill demonstrator was completed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

The MAPS system is designed to quickly plug-and-play new technologies including radars, infra-red sensors, jammers, decoys and hard-kill shooters, according to published reports.

"Using Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor and Northrop Grumman's sensor and countermeasure systems, the team completed initial integration in preparation for full system demonstrations on an M1 Abrams tank in 2017," the release stated.

Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor controls and processes information from multiple sensors and countermeasures, and drives information displays, the release added.

"Combat in Iraq and Syria has shown how superior the Russian Protection Countermeasures Systems are to those in the West" or a close translation. Idioms are difficult to translate sometimes