New US Infantry fighting vehicle from Israel? - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New US Infantry fighting vehicle from Israel? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:02:14 AM EDT

Thought this was a cool picure:

Soldiers from A Company, 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, maneuver around an Israeli Namer during the Maneuver Battle Lab's Ground Combat Vehicle assessment last month at Fort Bliss, Texas. Army leaders used the session to learn about eventual requirements for a new Infantry fighting vehicle.

The US Army is conducting non-developmental vehicle operational assessments of its current combat vehicles to evaluate capabilities against requirements for purchase of a new IFV for the Ground Combat Vehicle program. One of the vehicles being validated is the Namer.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:12:50 AM EDT

[#1]

based off the Merkava

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:23:54 AM EDT

[#2]

They're not looking to buy Namers, they're looking to see if Namers are a good idea.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:30:13 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
They're not looking to buy Namers, they're looking to see if Namers are a good idea.

I see.

I wonder what the results were.

IDF is well versed in arab city fighting.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:35:44 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They're not looking to buy Namers, they're looking to see if Namers are a good idea.

I see.

I wonder what the results were.

IDF is well versed in arab city fighting.

There's a lot of support for a vehicle similar to the Namer in some Army circles.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:37:06 AM EDT

[#5]

That's the original Bradley!

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:37:40 AM EDT

[#6]

I thought anything used by the US Military had to be made here ?

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:38:16 AM EDT

[#7]

The Namer is an APC rather than an IFV. Probably a good idea.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:40:04 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The Namer is an APC rather than an IFV. Probably a good idea.

It can be both, actually––-though if they do toss that 30mm on top, you know the ammo for it will cut into carrying capacity.
As it is, it sounds downright roomy by AFV standards––9 infantry and one stretcher case, apparently, not counting the 3 crew.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:40:10 AM EDT

[#9]

HOLY SHIT that thing is HUGE

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:42:04 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Namer is an APC rather than an IFV. Probably a good idea.

It can be both, actually––-though if they do toss that 30mm on top, you know the ammo for it will cut into carrying capacity.
As it is, it sounds downright roomy by AFV standards––9 infantry and one stretcher case, apparently, not counting the 3 crew.

Yeah, and if you put a 120mm cannon on top it'd be a tank.

As it is, it's an APC. It can't be both, they're distinct categories of vehicles.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:47:11 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Namer is an APC rather than an IFV. Probably a good idea.

It can be both, actually––-though if they do toss that 30mm on top, you know the ammo for it will cut into carrying capacity.
As it is, it sounds downright roomy by AFV standards––9 infantry and one stretcher case, apparently, not counting the 3 crew.

Yeah, and if you put a 120mm cannon on top it'd be a tank.

As it is, it's an APC. It can't be both, they're distinct categories of vehicles.

I am aware––but the versions with the 30mm in the remote station are still Namers, so I meant, more accurately, that it could be *either,* with little modification.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:47:24 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
That's the original Bradley!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

My very first thought. They'll finally get the M111 replacement they wanted around 2019.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:47:52 AM EDT

[#13]

can't shoulder fired ATWs blow the fuck out of those things?

seems like armored vehicles are increasingly vulnerable

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:52:07 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
can't shoulder fired ATWs blow the fuck out of those things?

seems like armored vehicles are increasingly vulnerable

Well, they do essentially have tank armor, along with (probably––due to budget cuts they got axed, then came back last year,) the Iron Fist active denial system.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:54:03 AM EDT

[#15]

More pictures and some comments on the various entrys. I think they did this earlier in the year at Bliss and White Sands:

http://defense-update.com/20120607_aifv_evaluation.html

Sgt. Nehemiah Robertson, a gunner, said he identified a target at 1,500 meters in the Swedish CV9035 vehicle but also liked the Bradley’s sights capability. Both delivered great firepower. ”We liked the bigger-gun capabilities,” Manilla said. “Any vehicle without a large cannon to destroy armored vehicles gave us some challenges because it forced the Soldiers to dismount.”

Each vehicle provided different levels of situational awareness, said Maj. Jerel Evans, the EXFOR commander. The Israeli Namer, for example, had seven cameras — they can show the positions of dismounted squad members and where the gunner is firing.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:54:25 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
It can't be both, they're distinct categories of vehicles.

Look, someone new to Army procurement.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:55:03 AM EDT

[#17]

This vehicle and the tank it is derived from have one huge design drawback that will mean we will never buy them. They are not anywhere near easy if at all air transportable. One of teh requirements of US heavy lift transport is carrying tanks and IFV's, this one will not fit.

Posted: 8/2/2012 7:56:23 AM EDT

[#18]

The point of playing with the Namer isn't to see if we will buy Namers; its to see if the super-heavy IFV concept works for us or not.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:00:49 AM EDT

[#19]

Ignorance here, but wouldn't a long, flat roof like that be disadvantageous in an urban environment? Seems like a good idea for open field engagements.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:00:59 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
This vehicle and the tank it is derived from have one huge design drawback that will mean we will never buy them. They are not anywhere near easy if at all air transportable. One of teh requirements of US heavy lift transport is carrying tanks and IFV's, this one will not fit.

Wut.

Our MRAPs and Bradleys are only able to be flown on C-17s and C-5s right now, and that's fine.

The Abrams is heavier than the Namer and it's C-17 transportable.

Regardless, we transport most armor by ship, which means that weight is not really an issue, but volume is (slightly).

We don't airbridge heavy armor in any significant quantities. That is a silly argument.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:33:21 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
That's the original Bradley!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Thanks I never seen that before.

Kinda like the F 35 ?

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:44:49 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They're not looking to buy Namers, they're looking to see if Namers are a good idea.

I see.

I wonder what the results were.

IDF is well versed in arab city fighting.

I can think of another army that is probably the most well versed in the world at "arab city fighting"

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:47:25 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This vehicle and the tank it is derived from have one huge design drawback that will mean we will never buy them. They are not anywhere near easy if at all air transportable. One of teh requirements of US heavy lift transport is carrying tanks and IFV's, this one will not fit.

Wut.

Our MRAPs and Bradleys are only able to be flown on C-17s and C-5s right now, and that's fine.

The Abrams is heavier than the Namer and it's C-17 transportable.

Regardless, we transport most armor by ship, which means that weight is not really an issue, but volume is (slightly).

We don't airbridge heavy armor in any significant quantities. That is a silly argument.

The Stryker is C-130 transportable.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:49:54 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This vehicle and the tank it is derived from have one huge design drawback that will mean we will never buy them. They are not anywhere near easy if at all air transportable. One of teh requirements of US heavy lift transport is carrying tanks and IFV's, this one will not fit.

Wut.

Our MRAPs and Bradleys are only able to be flown on C-17s and C-5s right now, and that's fine.

The Abrams is heavier than the Namer and it's C-17 transportable.

Regardless, we transport most armor by ship, which means that weight is not really an issue, but volume is (slightly).

We don't airbridge heavy armor in any significant quantities. That is a silly argument.

The Stryker is C-130 transportable.

Just take the wheels off, strip the armor, cut the .50 in half, parachute in the crew, and bring the ammo, engine, fuel, and equipment to build the factory that is needed to reassemble it in successive C-130 flights. Other than that technicality it's pretty much good to go, except for the sucking at fighting part.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:50:52 AM EDT

[#25]

something based on the CV90 hull would be the way to go. its lighter than the M2 and more maneuverable (in the Norwegian IFV trials the M2 got stuck in the snow while the CV9030 ran rings around it), with equal armor protection and a steel hull vs aluminum in the M2. and its crazy short for having so much interior space....

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:51:02 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
based off the Merkava

Don't take this the wrong way: I love the Merkava.

However, they aren't a good fit for us unless we plan on upgrading our airlift capabillities. The Israelis don't have to worry about making their tanks and armored vehicles air-transport freindly, and if you've ever seen an M1 and a Merkava side-by-side, its pretty apparent. As it stands, it takes us a whole lot longer to get armor into position than I like right now, and going bigger and heavier isn't going to make it any easier.

Then again, I am approaching this from a USMC expeditionary warfare mindset. What works for the Army doesn't necessarily work for us.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:53:42 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
HOLY SHIT that thing is HUGE

Its a Merkava tank hull...basically.

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:54:08 AM EDT

[#28]

Wonder why they felt the need to photoshop the 2 story building into the pic?

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:54:20 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
something based on the CV90 hull would be the way to go. its lighter than the M2 and more maneuverable (in the Norwegian IFV trials the M2 got stuck in the snow while the CV9030 ran rings around it), with equal armor protection and a steel hull vs aluminum in the M2. and its crazy short for having so much interior space....

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/pack_front.jpg

Now Im interested. How did they keep the usable internal volume so high? Compact powerplant?

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:56:38 AM EDT

[#30]

What works for a small country that plans on fighting on its door step with a short logistical tail will not work for an Army that could be forced to fight anywhere in the world. Like the concept not sure its the right fit.

I am just a gay Airwinger though I am probably wrong

Posted: 8/2/2012 8:58:16 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Wonder why they felt the need to photoshop the 2 story building into the pic?

One of two reasons:
A- To depict scale
B- To hide the UFO

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:01:21 AM EDT

[#32]

Big SOB!

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:02:14 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
What works for a small country that plans on fighting on its door step with a short logistical tail will not work for an Army that could be forced to fight anywhere in the world. Like the concept not sure its the right fit.

I am just a gay Airwinger though I am probably wrong

Nah, its a valid point. Part of the reason the Corps likes the LAV's so much is that wheeled vehicles, while slightly less capable, have much shorter logistical tails. The Army's adoption of the Stryker was part of a greater strategy on their part of trying to become a more agile (*cough*Marine-Like*cough*) force.

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:16:15 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
based off the Merkava

Don't take this the wrong way: I love the Merkava.

However, they aren't a good fit for us unless we plan on upgrading our airlift capabillities. The Israelis don't have to worry about making their tanks and armored vehicles air-transport freindly, and if you've ever seen an M1 and a Merkava side-by-side, its pretty apparent. As it stands, it takes us a whole lot longer to get armor into position than I like right now, and going bigger and heavier isn't going to make it any easier.

Then again, I am approaching this from a USMC expeditionary warfare mindset. What works for the Army doesn't necessarily work for us.

Everything worth a damn goes by ship or C17.
Make it as big as you want.
We cube before we gross on ships.
Stop pretending the AF is doing anything anyway. Its a poor assumption and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
You can have an HBCT anywhere with a port in 96 hours with the right PREPO configuration (which we currently lack, of course)

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:18:53 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
based off the Merkava

Don't take this the wrong way: I love the Merkava.

However, they aren't a good fit for us unless we plan on upgrading our airlift capabillities. The Israelis don't have to worry about making their tanks and armored vehicles air-transport freindly, and if you've ever seen an M1 and a Merkava side-by-side, its pretty apparent. As it stands, it takes us a whole lot longer to get armor into position than I like right now, and going bigger and heavier isn't going to make it any easier.

Then again, I am approaching this from a USMC expeditionary warfare mindset. What works for the Army doesn't necessarily work for us.

Everything worth a damn goes by ship or C17.
Make it as big as you want.
We cube before we gross on ships.
Stop pretending the AF is doing anything anyway. Its a poor assumption and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.You can have an HBCT anywhere with a port in 96 hours with the right PREPO configuration (which we currently lack, of course)

Anytime I ever deployed anywhere it was on Airforce birds, and this was just hauling supplementry gear for an airwing squadron.

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:23:20 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
based off the Merkava

Don't take this the wrong way: I love the Merkava.

However, they aren't a good fit for us unless we plan on upgrading our airlift capabillities. The Israelis don't have to worry about making their tanks and armored vehicles air-transport freindly, and if you've ever seen an M1 and a Merkava side-by-side, its pretty apparent. As it stands, it takes us a whole lot longer to get armor into position than I like right now, and going bigger and heavier isn't going to make it any easier.

Then again, I am approaching this from a USMC expeditionary warfare mindset. What works for the Army doesn't necessarily work for us.

Everything worth a damn goes by ship or C17.
Make it as big as you want.
We cube before we gross on ships.
Stop pretending the AF is doing anything anyway. Its a poor assumption and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.You can have an HBCT anywhere with a port in 96 hours with the right PREPO configuration (which we currently lack, of course)

Anytime I ever deployed anywhere it was on Airforce birds, and this was just hauling supplementry gear for an airwing squadron.

Oh, you were hauling AF stuff.
My bad, I was talking about stuff for warfighting. those squadron bars can take up some room.
fair point, just looking at it from different angles.

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:25:15 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
based off the Merkava

Don't take this the wrong way: I love the Merkava.

However, they aren't a good fit for us unless we plan on upgrading our airlift capabillities. The Israelis don't have to worry about making their tanks and armored vehicles air-transport freindly, and if you've ever seen an M1 and a Merkava side-by-side, its pretty apparent. As it stands, it takes us a whole lot longer to get armor into position than I like right now, and going bigger and heavier isn't going to make it any easier.

Then again, I am approaching this from a USMC expeditionary warfare mindset. What works for the Army doesn't necessarily work for us.

Everything worth a damn goes by ship or C17.
Make it as big as you want.
We cube before we gross on ships.
Stop pretending the AF is doing anything anyway. Its a poor assumption and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.You can have an HBCT anywhere with a port in 96 hours with the right PREPO configuration (which we currently lack, of course)

Anytime I ever deployed anywhere it was on Airforce birds, and this was just hauling supplementry gear for an airwing squadron.

Oh, you were hauling AF stuff.
My bad, I was talking about stuff for warfighting. those squadron bars can take up some room.
fair point, just looking at it from different angles.

They were hauling USMC Aviation gear. Not AF stuff

(just a guess)

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:26:55 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
HOLY SHIT that thing is HUGE

My initial reaction

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:32:24 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
can't shoulder fired ATWs blow the fuck out of those things?

seems like armored vehicles are increasingly vulnerable

Well, they do essentially have tank armor, along with (probably––due to budget cuts they got axed, then came back last year,) the Iron Fist active denial system.

Israel uses Trophy(Windbreaker), which actually saved a Merkava just yesterday from ATGM.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4263283,00.html

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:37:59 AM EDT

[#40]

Can we quit pussyfooting around and build a real Bolo now, please? I want a tank so big it makes the earth wobble in its orbit from the imbalance of so much weight on one side!

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:39:54 AM EDT

[#41]

I like it, of course I always thought the Merkava was a very cool tank.

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:42:15 AM EDT

[#42]

They did'nt build that! Obama did!

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:49:54 AM EDT

[#43]

Not my cup of tea. There goes the program again so much money to spend they have to make things up to spend it on. MRAP, Stryker,LAV, they should be looking at more deadly boom boom systems to mount on those. No need for all that extra heavy stuff unless we lock it up with the Chicoms, Russia or the EU. If we ever do every thing we got now will be Old School about year one into that dust up. Then new MBTs and AFVs that will make Stars Wars look out of date all round for every one.

Posted: 8/2/2012 10:56:34 AM EDT

[#44]

Posted: 8/2/2012 11:31:32 AM EDT

[#45]

That's a huge bitch!

ETA: I wonder what the log/ordinance footprint is of that next to the Brad?

Posted: 8/2/2012 11:47:32 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
That's a huge bitch!

ETA: I wonder what the log/ordinance footprint is of that next to the Brad?

Engine and usage dependent.
An intelligent use would be to take the M1s that we gave the guard and rotted away in MATES and reconfigure.
Dump the turbine and use an APU. 90% of the time armored vehicles simply idle and don't move. An automatic cutoff that rotated between the two would save huge bucks.

Log footprint would remain constant as the brad chassis is used for other systems, an M1 based APC would slave off M1 log.
The engine might be one off, but an APC that goes more than 35 mph is an over engineered waste.
the M1 goes fast, but nothing keeps up, so we burn turbine type gas while at 40% power.
good for aircraft, bad for tanks.

Posted: 8/2/2012 11:52:24 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's a huge bitch!

ETA: I wonder what the log/ordinance footprint is of that next to the Brad?

Engine and usage dependent.
An intelligent use would be to take the M1s that we gave the guard and rotted away in MATES and reconfigure.
Dump the turbine and use an APU. 90% of the time armored vehicles simply idle and don't move. An automatic cutoff that rotated between the two would save huge bucks.

Log footprint would remain constant as the brad chassis is used for other systems, an M1 based APC would slave off M1 log.
The engine might be one off, but an APC that goes more than 35 mph is an over engineered waste.
the M1 goes fast, but nothing keeps up, so we burn turbine type gas while at 40% power.
good for aircraft, bad for tanks.

By the time we re-enigne the M1, and redesign the hull to accommodate infantry doors, why bother?