Oshkosh Defense’s Post

Oshkosh Defense please tell the world about your advances in central tire inflation systems that allows that beast of burden to make it's own road anywhere in the world. In fact, Americans should learn first hand what you have accomplished. How about a live demonstration in Cleveland, Ohio, September 11-15? Here's the details: EnergyandMobility.org Conference and Expo

Worth highlighting here that General Dynamics actually developed a next-gen tank prototype on their own dime and presented it to the Army at Association of the United States Army - AUSA and other forums. This effort heavily influenced ideas the Army then incorporated into their requirements. "In October 2022, GDLS unveiled the AbramsX Technology Demonstrator, featuring reduced weight (10 tons less than the current M-1 Abrams), a hybrid electric diesel engine that is 50% more fuel-efficient than the current Abrams, an unmanned turret reducing the crew from four to three soldiers, enhanced armor to protect against drone-dropped bombs, communication capabilities with unmanned aerial vehicles, and an onboard AI system to alert the crew to long-range threats and prioritize fires against multiple threats." #defenseindustry #defenseinnovation #defensetech

General Dynamics Land Systems got a US Army Next Generation M1 Abrams Tank Design deal. The Army has not unveiled the specific requirements for the M1E3, but a 2019 Army Science Board study on future tanks reportedly influenced the establishment of the M-1E3 program. This study proposed a $2.9 billion, seven-year program to develop a "fifth-generation combat vehicle" with a host of advanced capabilities. "The schedule for the M1E3’s preliminary design and subsequent phases is currently under review within the Army’s acquisition branch. In the interim, the U.S. Army and GDLS are collaborating closely. This partnership aims to meticulously determine the new Abrams variant's desired features and achievable capabilities, ensuring a comprehensive and effective design." - Global Defense News Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eV3JCqze #govcon #governmentcontracting #tank #defense #contractawards Neal Wheeler | Danny Deep | Jeffrey Massimilla

Would love to see the live-fire SOMs, all the T&R standards and the how each COF was codified, qualified, quantified and remediated. Did they repeat everything - again - using the existing materiel solutions (wpns) in a verbatim, real time shoot-off against the latest and greatest? Tell / show me exactly how the new gear is better... cradle to grave... and how it supports movement, maneuver and the needed geometry-of-fire solutions per the applicable doctrine. I hope all this was done. It usually never is and folks end up "winging" things for a few years. Speaking of soup and if the shoe fits; rant to follow... There is historical precedence for some involved in the fielding of new types of weapons to try and engineer the thinking Infantryman out of the equation, I hope none of these capabilities facilitates that particular twisted and moronic mindset down the road. We don't need anymore "faster is better", "more projectiles at once is better", "stupidly expensive ammo is better" and "flechettes are better" silliness vis-a-vis Projects SALVO & NIBLICK. Anytime we field a new capability, people HAVE to be able to train with it PRIOR to combat. That means it would behoove folks to start fielding ALL applicable simulators - just like the Air Folks of each service do - at the same time we introduce and field new capabilities. Additionally for those of you doing so, or so inclined to, please stop advocating that we field ammo that is so smart that it is cost prohibitive to train with and that people will only see it when they cross the LD into combat. This mentality has kicked our ass since the early 70s and we repeated it again and again at the start of - and throughout - IRAQI /ENDURING FREEDOM. Do better. Ensure we have an actual capabilities gap / deficiency before we field a new capability. STOP letting folks "field" hot and cold running materiel solutions looking for a deficiencies to back fill. Also, just because Captain Smith or Colonel Jones fell in love with "X" at a Trade-Show, does NOT mean anyone "just has" to buy it. It also does not matter how many people "love it." Do better. Parting shot. Many people who advocate for Materiel Solution X in a vacuum simply because they like it, are often the same dolts who confuse "deployed time and getting shot with actual MOS proficiency." Don't let these types come to the "requirements" table. They will just breath your air and slow the process.

Oshkosh Defense, LLC, an Oshkosh Corporation business, announced today that the U.S. Army placed an order for additional Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles A2 and trailers. The order is valued at $108.9 million and includes FMTV A2s for U.S. Army modernization initiatives as well as Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to international partners. The FMTV A2, renowned for its versatility, reliability, and performance, supports a wide range of missions and payloads. Its unmatched capabilities include improved armor protection, upgraded drivetrain and suspension systems, providing increased payload capacity and mobility. The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) are a series of military vehicles based upon a common chassis, varying by payload and mission requirements. The FMTV is derived from the Austrian Steyr 12M18 truck, but substantially modified to meet United States Army requirements. These include a minimum 50 percent U.S. content. There were originally 17 FMTV variants—four variants in the nominal 2.5 U.S. ton payload class, designated Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV), and 13 variants with a nominal 5 U.S. ton payload rating, called Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV). In February 2018, the U.S. Army selected Oshkosh to build to FMTV A2. #military #defense #defence #militaryleak https://lnkd.in/gPjn-GKf

Defense major BAE Systems has inked a US$797 million deal with the US Army for its Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program. The first purchase is worth $797 million and involves an unknown number of vehicles that will replace the old M113 APCs used by the service. The AMPV fleet has five different types of vehicles — for general use, mortar transport, medical evacuation, medical treatment and mission command. The Army can quickly cover 100km with modern fast light vehicles and easily overpower the small enemy forces guarding the target with your heavy firepower. The army can destroy the air defense units at an airfield and use it to land more troops and equipment. This would give you a strong base deep inside enemy territory. You could also bring in heavier units that could resist any enemy counterattack. https://lnkd.in/dD55pViY #army #military #defense #usarmy #vehicle

GM Defense, a subsidiary of General Motors, and Mistral Inc., a provider of high-performance, reliable and innovative solutions to U.S. defense and federal agencies, announced the integration of the innovative UVision and Mistral’s Hero-120 loitering munition with GM Defense’s light tactical utility vehicle. Combining GM Defense’s expertise in military mobility with Mistral and UVision’s loitering munition technology enables the companies to support the tactical needs of a modernized force. The GM Defense utility concept vehicle is based on the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2. The utility vehicle features a high percentage of commercial off the shelf parts, including Chevrolet Performance components to enhance off-road capabilities, and offers different seating configurations to meet customer requirements. The utility solution is designed with a cargo bed in the rear of the vehicle, ideal for housing Mistral’s and UVision’s Hero-120 solution, or to support command and control, electronic warfare, counter-unmanned aircraft systems, reconnaissance and logistics. The Hero-120 is designed for engaging enemy combatants without exposing Soldiers to direct enemy fire. This loitering munition system is versatile in targeting, capable of engaging a variety of targets, including armored vehicles, enemy troops, field fortifications and urban structures. Its precision strike capability is specifically designed to maximize effectiveness while minimizing collateral damage. #military #defense #defence #militaryleak https://lnkd.in/gTgTNR3J

I keep hearing from all sorts of folks that towed artillery, aircraft carriers, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, the M-2HB and formations of Infantry-of-foot are on their way out or are already relics of the past. Additionally these same folks -- between beating their chests and trying to convince the world that their bona fides are better than everyone else's, even if their actual SME qualifications are tantamount to fervered multi-player COD XBox sessions, possessing a substantial collection of swords and / or having seen 1981's "Taps" 327 times -- want you to know that if you disagree with them, you are somehow mentally defective and a disgrace to whatever service uniform you wear / wore. Nothing is ever that black and white or that cut and dry. NOTHING. EVER. Just to cause trouble, here's a small list of similar statements and / or emphatic dire warnings and skewed observations from folks over the years, that turned out to be a bit alarmist and premature: Dogfights are a thing of the past, because missiles. Jets don't need guns because better missiles. We don't need 60mm mortars anymore. Most of the small arms "findings / conclusions" from Projects SALVO and NIBLICK. We dont need flame weapons. They are inhumane - except for FAE and Thermobaric of course. Those are ok. Landmines are BAD. Ask UN for help. Except area denial is a thing. No need for Battleships. Except upgrade them again and again. Plus Tomahawks. The M1 Abrams does NOT need a Canister round, escape hatch or a troop-to-crew-phone. Littoral Combat Ships are the WAVE of the future. Build tons. Amphibious Ops / Forcible Entry are things of the past...What is an "Inchon?" Fix bayonets! Huh? Why...are they broken? We don't need dismounted troops anymore because tactical nukes. We don't need the A-10. Here are your AN/PSQ-18s that no one asked for. Why? Because John Murtha. NGF! A single 5-inch gun is the same as nine 16-inch guns. No need to ever bring back the M-72 LAW. We'll never need an expeditionary 120mm Mortar capability. No Infantry Company will ever need more than 14 pairs of AN/PVS-7Bs. Only 1 in 5 MTVRs needs a turret ring / mounted machinegun. Phase IV / SASO starts next week. Why? Because the calander says so. Amphibs don't really need well-decks. HAW-MAW-LAW is not a thing anymore - except when it is. MRAPS will NOT chain us to some sort of road / improved surface network. Not every Hummer needs a winch. Feel free to add to the list. I'm curious as to how long it could get.

The Republic of Korea, having the constant threat of large scale war on its doorstep, developed the K2 MBT in the the 2000’s and fielded it in 2014. Lighter and more agile but with similar firepower as competitors, it offers enhanced automatisation, full digital infrastructure and layers of protection from armour to active systems, making it one of very few current future-proof MBTs in service. With lower acquiring- and operational costs, the quickest delivery terms and 30 year production lines along with a multitude of offset-possibilities, the K2 is the smart option for users looking to modernise with continuously updated off-the-shelf capability. With the ongoing war in Europe, where both sides rely heavily on armoured vehicles, the world’s most powerful army has taken a new stance on its main battle tank (MBT) force. There are two things that emerge: 1. The MBT is still relevant in war and will be for many years. 2. The current path of tank modernisation is not feasible Some military thinkers have laid the MBT to rest, given what drones, loitering munitions and advanced missiles have brought to the battleground. While those new effectors undoubtedly have changed the battlefield, the MBT persists and will do in the future also. Why? Because a ground-holding force is needed on the ground, whether in offence or defence. Controlling the air alone is not enough. The only force capable of breaching heavily fortified and complex lines are heavily armoured forces, supported by other branches and technology. When the US Army decides to abandon M1A2 Abrams enhancement packages (sepV4) and re-focus entirely on engineering a new Abrams variant (that’s what the ‘E’ in M1E3 stands for), it’s because the current path of adding more armour and more of everything else on to an already heavy platform is not feasible. The 70 tons MBTs will not be safer or more effective on tomorrow’s battlefield. The newest western tanks are conceived in the 1970’s-80’s. While still great and undoubtedly proven through the last decades, they do have an expiry date, due to the above mentioned restrictions. It will be interesting to see what Europe will do.