The "we need to invent it" attitude is more of a "we need to own it (the design)" so that the DoD isn't held captive by corporations, supply chains, spare parts, etc.  If they want more of something, they take their design and go shop it around.

So during the shoot-off phase of selection, you require all vendors provide unlimited rights to the technical data package for each prototype. You select the winner, move forward into DT/OT, they make improvements, you pay for the new TDP revisions after every milestone, hit Milestone C and then bid new people for full rate production. Except you must redo first article testing. Now you've got a TDP with some revisions for the new builder, with a factory turning out product at the rate you require for X years.

After X years, you go to sustainment, every time something goes obsolete, you send a snippet of the TDP to a new contractor for them to design a replacement,  but they don't have the institutional knowledge of why things work that way, the coupling between parts, etc.  They just know power, data, size/ weight/ power/ cooling their new box must fit in. Some are even designed by government offices in house, produced by shops normally used only for rapid prototyping but instead in quantity for the field.

Now you have a vehicle with parts from 20 different vendors you've sourced yourself, and feature X doesn't work when you go to the test range. How the TM says to do it doesn't match any of the components, the users are complaining they need it back, and the capability manager says it has renewed importance on the modern battlefield so you need to make it even better.

Now you call the original manufacturer and ask him to fix it, but you don't have any money to replace the 20 boxes he's never seen before, he laughs in your face, no-bids the contract and walks away.

You retire the modern weapon system after only 7-10 years in the field instead of its predicted 25 year life. You cry to Congress you need hundreds of millions of dollars to create its replacement in 3 years to meet this modern battlefield threat the original system was supposed to counter but that capability was lost to time and government ineptitude.

Sole source costs money, but at least you've got one Ferrari- driving asshole you can scream at when things do not work.

Kharn

Lol. True enough - my post was more of a clarification than an endorsement of the (broken) process.  Also, it wouldn't surprise me to find out we've run into each other through our work.

They are sooooooooooo fun to clean.

Tons of little holes all around the gun tube we had to clean out with pipe cleaners.

In the Louisiana sunshine.

Then wouldn't you want an actual tank?  Otherwise you could just slap some antitank missile launchers on it and call it good.  I guess it depends on what you are going to do with the vehicle.

Well, the Strkyer is may by General Dynamics and the Patria is made by....some Finnish country?

Foreign designed weapons enter US service via a US prime, and that vehicle was put forward for a Marine program by Lockheed

Well shit, I thought the M8 with the three levels of armor was a shoe-in.  

Is the GD system based on the same rolling pile of shit Ajax that the British are having so many problems with?

The role of armor is changing.

In peer/near peer engagements, armor is vulnerable to modern anti-tank missiles (see JAVELIN), drones, and standoff aircraft launched weapons (see SMALL DIAMETER BOMB).  Check out the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Where is still has value is non-peer engagements (insurgencies) like Irag and Afghanistan where there are few viable threats to even lightly armored vehicles (like the MRAP).  This is where the light tank is needed. No 120mm gun required.

In either case, a large and expensive MBT isn't what you want.  It's either vulnerable or too much.

The USMC, which was never armor heavy anyways, has just retired ALL of it's M1 Abrams.  Some of that is a change in planned role to small units deploying piecemeal to islands around the Pacific vs large formation deployments as seen for Iraq, Afghanistan.  Right now, the Marines don't have plans to put anything bigger than a battalion anyplace other than to help secure Norway as part of a NATO scenario (which still isn't tank country).

Seems with that some sort of combat vehicle armed with ATGMs for anti-tank work and an auto cannon for anti-infantry and soft skinned vehicle work would be the best option at this time. After all, what’s the point of heavy armor when an ATGM in top attack can defeat it, and the majority of the time the target of an engagement is infantry. So, basically an IFV or a updated Sheridan light tank that can fire updated AT missiles through its demolition gun.

Yes. Now consider the hilarity if it loses the Bradley-replacement competition. You end up with the turret-less  Bradley that’s replacing the M113, this, and potentially the Lynx or K21 for an IFV.

Stryker Dragoon.

Kharn

Very new news. Hopefully now they can upgun it. The engine being in the front of the GDLS entry is still a mistake.

Patria is partly owned by Konigsberg, who has no shortage of US relationships.

Between the two it’s what I would have picked. You can get the power pack out without a crane, it’s easier to tow and you can deploy 50% more per C-17 sortie.


Yes. They are talking about using a hydropneumatic suspension as a fix for the overloaded torsion bar suspension it came with. If anyone knows why they don’t just use a hydropneumatic suspension to start with, other than cost, I’d like to know.

This is why I said they should have considered a tracked vehicle with a 50mm gun. Think upsized CVRT.

Modern Centauro is 120mm

And it’s a good choice but would be better if it had a lower hull, larger magazine in the bustle, and rear mounted engine.

Kind of. A nation like the US is semi-prepared against a peer. Needs more ADA but do fine and capabilities are meant to enable tanks to operate. If you have crappy old tanks that can’t see an ATGM crew with thermals, different problem. People with old tanks would be well advised to leave them to fighting angry students.


Aside from not having modern munitions like AMP. Daemon had interesting comments on the poor efficacy of HEAT in urban areas. 105 has HESH and contact HE but no air burst. But what do you do when you’re sent to Serbia as a peacekeeper and you turn the corner and run into modernist Serbian tanks?


Tank destroyers of course.
So much for being a combined arms force.

Frankly we're in a sort of transition period where its hard to predict where its all going.

There are kamikaze UAVs and smart missiles that can take out a tank pretty easily, but you cant get rid of one; without one you are back to infantry maneuvering on dug in infantry who have MGs and mortars and that isnt going to work either.  Given US ROE, I dont see how you fight urban without armored vehicles.  

I think we are heading some sort of period as we saw at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.  Properly led, a 1st world army can take on all comers, but if they bounce off each other, circa 1915, the life span of any particular actor in the rock paper scissors of modern war could be short.  At this point the only guys out there who are heading toward the top of the food chain oddly enough are the UAV pilots.  Being a ground maneuver guy is getting harder. We could be seeing the rise of tactical defense, espcially in urban areas.  But you need some money to buy it and ante up.  Or, in the case of teh Ukranians, be good at giving others to give you stuff.

It’s going to make it more expensive to be top dog while increasing the value of modest investments in defense for the developing world.  

interesting... less than a Panther

The limit for a C130 is 40,000lbs.
And even if you meet that, the third axle load limit as you crest the ramp is very rigid on your weight distribution.

Kharn

That is III MEF’s role and they probably will still operate as a MEB, while both I and II MEF will still operate as either RCTs or MEBs for all the other OPLANs.

Stryker atgm is a thing (TOW platform)


Stryker MCV uses a foreign mortar system.

I don't recall those having atgm launchers. Did something change?

You saying Stryker doesn't use hydropneumatic suspension?

Somebody understand force management procedures!!

I just have a hard time seeing the role for a wheeled vehicle sporting a full sized tank cannon.  30-50mm seems like the sweet spot for guns seeing as one of it's roles is anti drone work and there will be a LOT of drones in any near peer conflict.   It's not hard to include atgm launchers.

Continuity of parts/pieces. Ability to strip similar vehicles for their working parts to refit broken vehicles. Commonality of operational interests within similar vehicle platforms versus having to train on new vehicle platforms. Just my guess of course.

The Stryker was only ever supposed to be a temporary stop-gap until the Advanced Combat Vehicle (ACV) family of vehicles came along. Of course, the ACV was eventually cancelled and the Stryker became permanent

Check out this marketing dept word salad that means absolutely nothing:

https://www.military.com/equipment/m1126-stryker-combat-vehicle

Im not sure what the original goal for the mgs was.

My favorite AT setup was on the BMP. Just strap an rpg on the side of the weapon station. Lol

I believe there has been some talk about using a different rws on some Stryker variants that has some missile capability (javelin, iirc). I think that a different system using lasers has been talked about to combat drones.

No I’m saying Griffin/ASCOD doesn’t.

Gotcha.

It’s the major proposed fix that I’ve heard the Brits are kicking around too.

The MGS isn't for tank killing, it's for bunkers and static fortified positions. The ATGM Stryker is for tanks.

The 2CR Stryker CROWS can fit a Javelin tube on the side now.

Kharn