Combat Reform Respect Thread: Only Real Experts Allowed

[Marduk]

That is a relatively limited use specialist design, and is *literally* a minor spinoff of exactly what I already said, "tracks for heavy IFVs".

"Relatively limited use specialist design"
Minor spinoff?
FFS, the plan is for 3k of these things...

Army awards full rate production contract for AMPV

DETROIT ARSENAL, Mich. — The U.S. Army announced September 1 the award of the full rate production contract for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, or AM...

www.army.mil

The AMPV is one of the Army's top 35 modernization priorities, fulfilling the Army's strategy of protection, mobility, reliability and interoperability. The Army's worldwide AMPV fleet will include nearly 3,000 vehicles delivered within the next 20 years.

Wheeled platforms are actually more survivable than tracked equivalents against mine and IED threats and have substantially superior mobility not only on roads but also in light off-road conditions.

Great for low intensity conflicts, peacekeeping and this sort of stuff.
More controversial for conventional warfare where roads are prime hunting ground for advanced long range weapons and IEDs are not the main threat.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah Roads can be the worst idea in a LSCO fight

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I would point out that the advantage of tracked versus wheeled platforms is thin enough that the Army did not actually specify that the AMPV needed to be tracked, and General Dynamics seriously considered that it could satisfy the AMPV program requirements with a heavier variant of the Stryker.

The main reason they didn't was that the Army dictated that the AMPV was required to have at least equal cross-country performance to the M113 in all environments. . . but allowed BAE Systems to declare those exact performance parameters to be proprietary information exclusive to BAE. This meant that BAE was able to optimize its AMPV candidate's cross-country performance to be exactly what was required for the specifications, but General Dynamics was denied the data necessary to make comparable optimizations.

In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a competitive bid process at all. As the sole fully American company in the armored vehicle market, General Dynamics Land Systems should be granted sole-source contracts until there's an actual *American* competitor. Foreign vehicles should never be purchased for the U.S. military unless there is *no* available domestic vehicle for the job.

 

[Zachowon]

BAE American branch is solely American.last I checked.
It is under BAE, bt works independently of the British BAE

 

[Aaron Fox]

To be honest, APCs are going to be used for 2nd-line/garrison troops in the future, at best.

 

[Marduk]

I would point out that the advantage of tracked versus wheeled platforms is thin enough that the Army did not actually specify that the AMPV needed to be tracked, and General Dynamics seriously considered that it could satisfy the AMPV program requirements with a heavier variant of the Stryker.

One big one is not in mobility but in direct combat.
Wheels get fucked up a lot in conventional warfare, any little frag or machinegun fire and your vehicle is left with 50-100 km of reduced performance on run-flats until it gets damaged wheels switched out.
For a tracked vehicle, nothing happens, tracks need a light anti armor weapon or mine
to get damaged meaningfully.

The main reason they didn't was that the Army dictated that the AMPV was required to have at least equal cross-country performance to the M113 in all environments. . . but allowed BAE Systems to declare those exact performance parameters to be proprietary information exclusive to BAE. This meant that BAE was able to optimize its AMPV candidate's cross-country performance to be exactly what was required for the specifications, but General Dynamics was denied the data necessary to make comparable optimizations.

Is performance data of M113 any secret at that point? I mean there are even private owners...
It's petty, sure, but it should not be a major obstacle if they wanted such data.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Is performance data of M113 any secret at that point? I mean there are even private owners...
It's petty, sure, but it should not be a major obstacle if they wanted such data.

Having it declared proprietary corporate information means that General Dynamics is not allowed to use that information *even* if it is in fact known. It's a really sneaky way of basically throwing the competition for the Army's favored option, something highlighted by the fact that BAE was allowed to bid on the cost basis of converting existing Army surplus Bradleys to AMPVs, whereas GD had to bid new-build vehicles.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

BAE American branch is solely American.last I checked.
It is under BAE, bt works independently of the British BAE

Technically true, but a complete subversion of the intent of that law. It needs to be made stricter -- I'm much more pro-globalism than the majority on this forum, but in matters of natural security I am all for a near-absolute exception.

The United States should never be dependent on its allies, our allies should either stand with us or be dependent on us.

 

[Zachowon]

Technically true, but a complete subversion of the intent of that law. It needs to be made stricter -- I'm much more pro-globalism than the majority on this forum, but in matters of natural security I am all for a near-absolute exception.

The United States should never be dependent on its allies, our allies should either stand with us or be dependent on us.

I agree here for sure.
But BAE listens to thr US, not to UK.
If we say jump they ask how high

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I agree here for sure.
But BAE listens to thr US, not to UK.
If we say jump they ask how high

They're still a "American by technicality" department of a notoriously corrupt and incompetent British company. It's completely unacceptable -- they should never have been allowed to buy out United Defense in the first place.

 

[Zachowon]

They're still a "American by technicality" department of a notoriously corrupt and incompetent British company. It's completely unacceptable -- they should never have been allowed to buy out United Defense in the first place.

They operate independently of BAE UK

 

[Marduk]

Having it declared proprietary corporate information means that General Dynamics is not allowed to use that information *even* if it is in fact known.

With that level of legal fuckery they could totally accidentally establish similar to publicly known baseline, or use one of the few vehicles based on M113 but with IP held by different, local companies, in some cases in countries without particularly close relations to western counterparts and flexible legal systems.

It's a really sneaky way of basically throwing the competition for the Army's favored option, something highlighted by the fact that BAE was allowed to bid on the cost basis of converting existing Army surplus Bradleys to AMPVs, whereas GD had to bid new-build vehicles.

From perspective of fairness i get that complaint, but from army's utilitarian perspective this is a perfectly reasonable way to try save money.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

With that level of legal fuckery they could totally accidentally establish similar to publicly known baseline, or use one of the few vehicles based on M113 but with IP held by different, local companies, in some cases in countries without particularly close relations to western counterparts and flexible legal systems.

The ruling when General Dynamics appealed was pretty much that the Army was not required to level the playing field from the advantages BAE possessed as owner of the M113 and Bradley designs.

From perspective of fairness i get that complaint, but from army's utilitarian perspective this is a perfectly reasonable way to try save money.

The appeal also pointed out that technically the Army wasn't directly allowing Bradleys to be converted to AMPVs. They were giving an "option" of trading in used Bradleys for store credit to offset the advertised cost, with the understanding being that the Army would accept AMPVs with factory reconditioned Bradley hulls as being no different than new build ones. In theory, General Dynamics could have accepted the same deal and done whatever it pleased with the trade-in Bradleys (other than reverse engineering them, since they'd own the vehicles but not the IP rights).

This does raise the amusing mental image of a stereotypical shady used car dealer with Bradleys.

 

[Typhonis]

Lazerpig has a video about the Reformers on his channel. He also has a two part video on why the A-10 is crap. Why the F-35 is not so bad plus other things of that nature.

Basically....to the Reformers WW2 is going to break out again and we need to be ready to fight it.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Lazerpig has a video about the Reformers on his channel. He also has a two part video on why the A-10 is crap. Why the F-35 is not so bad plus other things of that nature.

The A-10 is old. It's literally a half century since it first flew, and it never got the fire-and-forget smart missiles that were supposed to be made for it, followed by being denied the Night/Adverse Weather upgrade, followed by the Air Force minimizing and underfunding every single capability upgrade.

 

[Doomsought]

The A-10 is old. It's literally a half century since it first flew, and it never got the fire-and-forget smart missiles that were supposed to be made for it, followed by being denied the Night/Adverse Weather upgrade, followed by the Air Force minimizing and underfunding every single capability upgrade.

Its also constantly judge outside its niche. The A-10 is not a strike fighter and should not be judged as such. It is a gunship, half of its competition are helicopters. It is designed to fight while flying in the tree tops with squirrels jumping onto its wings, yet for some reason people always judge it by its performance at cruising altitude.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Its also constantly judge outside its niche. The A-10 is not a strike fighter and should not be judged as such. It is a gunship, half of its competition are helicopters. It is designed to fight while flying in the tree tops with squirrels jumping onto its wings, yet for some reason people always judge it by its performance at cruising altitude.

It does have to *survive* getting to the CAS battlefield in an increasingly dangerous air defense environment. The A-10s kicked ass in the Gulf War, but they also took substantial hits. And frankly, anything that took substantial hits against 1980s technology and hasn't been dramatically upgraded is a dead duck in 2023.

 

[Marduk]

It does have to *survive* getting to the CAS battlefield in an increasingly dangerous air defense environment. The A-10s kicked ass in the Gulf War, but they also took substantial hits. And frankly, anything that took substantial hits against 1980s technology and hasn't been dramatically upgraded is a dead duck in 2023.

Counterpoint: It's the third year of the war, yet plenty of Su-25's, planes of similar age and characteristics, still fly on both sides, despite being used very much, over the most AA filled battlefield since Vietnam.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Counterpoint: It's the third year of the war, yet plenty of Su-25's, planes of similar age and characteristics, still fly on both sides, despite being used very much, over the most AA filled battlefield since Vietnam.

The Su-25s have taken heavy losses on both sides, and the fact that Russia's still able to use them has been pointed at as a sign that Ukraine has critically low supplies of AA weapons.

 

[Marduk]

The Su-25s have taken heavy losses on both sides, and the fact that Russia's still able to use them has been pointed at as a sign that Ukraine has critically low supplies of AA weapons.

Ukrainians also still use them. The fact is that forward placing good AA that could ruin the day of such planes has to be balanced that such expensive vehicles get really bad attrition when not in the rear. If the losses were truly heavy, those planes would no longer exist on either side since a year at least. If they can get away with losing only a third or even half the fleet over such a threat filled battlefield in such a long time, it's not looking bad for such planes in many of the less high end AA saturated conflicts.