What does /k/ think of the foxhound?
>>64306608Gonna need to mount some lasers on that
What does /k/ think of how infantry are organized with it?
>>64306608beats walkin>>64306614>organic platoon level trucksWW2 motor rifles are back
supposedly the back troop bay is a modular capsule but I haven't seen any other varients fielded except this shorad proposal
>>64306637here's a cut down version, but not using the modular backnot sure what the point is of doing this to an armored truck especially when they already have the jackal/coyote
>splitting a squad into two small vehicleshow do you handle the manpower for that?1) assign two extra drivers making it more manpower intensive than a vehicle that could transport all of them?2) don't assign extra and have a reduced 3-man fireteam?
>>64306637>>64306670utility module, nothing dramatic
>>64306608Same story as far too many Bongoloid armored vehicles: gets the job done but looks ugly as sin and the Burger + Kraut equivalents are both better.
>>64307039what's the Kraut version, the Dingo? Kinda bleh
>>64306608GDI-looking motherfuckas.
>>64306614>foxhound>ridgeback>husky>wolfhound
>>64306608It sure is a metal box with an engine and wheels. It probably gets the job done. It's British and therefore shit, but it's not exactly some wizard tech that can be fucked up in any particularly horrific way, even by a second rate power with a third rate military.
>>64307439>It's British and therefore shitHow do you explain the Landrover?
>>64306611Coming right up
>>64307986>still has that retarded low windshield with the passengers getting covered with mud
it isnt a MRAP but it provides a lil bit cover to mines? i dont get it, what are the damn specs
>>64306608oversized mine-protected jeepbut it looks cool and did the job fairly well>>643067273-man fireteams are given a bad schtick but they actually function very well compared to the usual battle buddy systembut if you look at the graphic carefully, it's actually 5 per vehicle. which is handy because attachments are very common especially in COIN work.>>64307992>it isnt a MRAPit is>specs7.5 tonnes, 70mph, driver, gunner, +4 passengers, 7.62mm resistant all around
>>64308001>but it looks cool and did the job fairly welllooks like it will get stuck in the mud fairly easily, any experience?
>>64307991I guess the thinking is you then don't need wipers, but that's still ??? because wipers aren't a big deal. if they want to be using it so much they probably should cook up a sealed cabin upfit of some sort
>>64308009>>64307991>>64307986somebody explain to me why the Army keeps insisting on these open cab vehicles and absolutely refuse to have even the thinnest sheet of steel and glass to keep out the elements?I know these vehicles are mostly budget and ultralightweight but surely that won't cost too much money or weight?
>>64308014They are immediately covered with mud or smashed by rocks. In sandy environments they're just blasted into nothing. Just a front windshield creates low pressure in the cab that sucks everything in. Goggles/tearoffs are easy. No barriers for night vision etc.
>>64306637this is the future, fire and forget rockets launched by a soldier with ai tracked targets
Riot control stuff they put on them for deployment in the Balkans, looked cool
>>64306608>Name General Dynamics Ocelot>Service name FoxhoundMGS fags were involved in this vehicle's production and adoption
>>64306608How fast is it?
>>64308374>No barriers for vision etcis the only other rationale I could think of>They are immediately covered with mud or smashed by rocksso it's unironically better that the passengers, interior, equipment and cargo are covered with mud and smashed by rocks instead?
>>64309586Not really an issue for the type of missions you're conducting with these. At minimum i would suggest you go drive around in a UTV or something
>>64309584Technically quite fast for a military vehicle, 82mph. But being poor, they selected a minivan/crossover-tier 6-cyl. 210hp, 0-50mph in 20 seconds, 35hp/ton. Contrast with the "slower" JLTV - 400hp Duramax V8, 57hp/ton.
>>64306608GREY FOX?!
>>64307992v-hull, it's m-rap>>64308001>but if you look at the graphic carefully, it's actually 5 per vehicle. where?>>64308014reduce weight so they can be moved quickly and fit inside chinooks and tactical airliftalso visibility
>>64306614why give the weapons platoon different vehicles lol
>>64306608...FOX....DIE!
>>64306614>weapons platoon in shittier transports than the rifle platoonsBut why?
>>64306608For your consideration: Hawkei, it's cute.
>>64311856FOX....ALIVE.....
>>64312140>Aussie vehicle camoWhen did the ADF get these things?
>>64312140>Ute but MRAPSee, that's how you do it bongs.
>>64310126They should take off the doors and just make the back an open rollcage so it can go faster
>>64310707>where?
>>64313576The four "crew" next to the foxhound are the driver, commander and two lads doing top-cover. There are more spare seats in the back for the other 5 blokes
>>64313744yeah so as I said, it's actually>5 per vehiclewhich is probably 23 dismounts, 6 drivers, on paperif the shit really hits it probably they'll just leave 2 fellas to watch the lot
>>64306614Should add a Wolfhound with a mounted LDEW/RFDEW to the platoons
>>64306608What kind of mileage does this thing get?
>>64306631That is company, but you aren't entirely wrong either. Most battalion level specialist platoons have their designated truck and there is often company sized specialist units on brigade level. >>64310930>>64311979Money.
>>64306614Maybe I'm dum, but: For the 2xRifle Platoon it says "1 officer, 28 other ranks each". It does NOT say 1 officer each. Does this mean that one officer commands two platoons of 56 men in total?
>>64310930>>64311979this orbat is the British Army's>here's how we'll use up the random hodge-podge of MRAPs we have left over back when we needed MRAPs really fucking fast and just cleared the shelves from anyone who had anything to sellformation>>64314476it means "each platoon has 1 officer and 28 other ranks"
>>64312140what gun is that ontop
>>64309586Yes. They make more soldiers all the time
>>64306608Next generation special forces codenamed Foxhound. Your former unit, and one that I was a commander of.
>>64314629>Yes. They make more soldiers all the timenot in nato countries tho^dwindling finite resource there
>>64306608The Foxhound is pretty good. It's fast, agile, adaptable, can cope with difficult terrain, and is reasonably well protected for a light vehicle.
>>64314590XM914 a/k/a M230LFIt's a multi-role version of the M230 chain gun used on Apache adapted for use on ground and naval platforms. It's heavier and has a much slower rate of fire, but can do things like use programmable ammunition, and has a longer barrel
>>64314045It has a range of about 700km.
>>64306614How does this measure up against the french lineup of Griffon, Jaguar and Serval?
>>64315987Forgot pic
>>64315990I got to give it to the Frogs. That lineup is great. All three vehicles serve a solid purpose.If I would change anything I would have a flatbed version of the APCs to fit other roles.
>>64316036Griffon and Serval seem somewhat redundant. Sure, yeah, there's a light one and a heavy one, but they seem to share a lot of things like equipment packages, and I can't figure out doctrinally why they couldn't go for all 6x6 or all 4x4.Pretty sure the 4x4 wasn't planned for originally in the Scorpion program.
>>64316350the 4x4 variant is a cost-cutting measure. indeed originally the Griffon was to supply all those units and functions.now, I don't know whether that plan was ever workable. as you know, the economy for the past 10 if not 15 years has been less than stellar. either 1) it seemed sensible but the economy took a downturn, forcing a change of plans, or 2) the Army said "fuck it we roll" and tried to force the French Treasury to cough up the €s, or 3) this is all a ruse and it was planned all along to have a cheaper variant. all these things are possible, and have happened before, in the history of military procurement.what I do know is that initially, officially, Serval was never in the picture, Griffon 6x6 was to have been one size fit all.
>>64312140Hawkie:Engine is put in backwards.Cant have gearbox and transfer case etc under crew cab due to blast resistance design, so the Engine is in front on one side but backwards, then a transfer box across the front to the gearbox parallel to the engine on the other side.So - all the hoses to the radiator at the front have to travel from the back of the engine on the cab firewall back to the nose of the vehicle.>Mechanics nightmare.Batteries are in the back under the cargo tray.The vehicle electronics including radio gear gps etc are all on the back wall of the crew cab, again so the cab internal is unobstructed.So - fire the roof-mounted RWS and all the brass falls down the back of the crew cab getting caught in the component wiring, or worse falling down into the batteries and short-circuiting to a fire.Fire prevention after every gun use is unload the tray, unclip it and lift it off, then scrape out all the expended brass.>Clusterfuck, fire risk and component failures, and cant be done in a hostile areaThen you need a trailer to carry the spare tyre and the crew's gear.Its supposed to be ADFs great new design, but the only functional element that actually works is the blast-resistant cab itself - and that's actually from Plasan in Israel, not locally produced.Oh, and the engine was from Steyr in Austria but that division went bankrupt, so their last sole customer had to buy out the factory and keep it running, because it was too late in the design to re-engine, but again the engines are imported from an 'Australian' factory in Austria.The RWS is a commercial EOS model that ADF did their testing for them for free but didn't buy - they sell them to the Saudis UAE etc and 'non-military' parts of Israel because they can't sell direct to IDF.
>>64317581The whole story is such an acquisition clusterfuck they could do 'Pentagon Wars 2" on Hawkei and the Bradley would like a perfect scheme.Now they're only built because the Australian assembly plant is in a marginal electorate and the public-service staff are in a strong Union.
>>64307972Where did you get the idea that Landrovers are good?
>>64316036>flatbed version of the APCsStrap a 105 mm to the back of a Griffon chassis and you've got yourself a lightweight self propelled gun for the marine, mountain and airborne brigades, freeing more CAESARs for the mech units
>>64306608Vaguely cute but you can tell something is off about it. Like Australian women.
>>64306608Inflated cost due to small production run and composite materials, so they're considering JLTV in the thousands. Foxhound unit cost is like 3x JLTV. Steyr had what seems like Chinese hostile take over in the open with a Chinese head of board and plant in China from what i recall after bankrupty Thales bought it. picrel with same Steyr M16, ZF and 4ws. Also pricey and limited to SOF units. Is there any manufacturer in Europe even producing bespoke vehicles at assembly line rate? Vamtac?
>>64317641ah, so you're a retard and your opinions can be entirely disregarded.
