Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Smitty's Achievements


Crew (2/3)



  1. I have to imagine it's a lot easier to make a low-velocity TOW HESH work than a low-velocity HESH gun round. The TOW warhead doesn't have to survive a high-G gun launch down a rifled barrel.
  2. The XM1206 ICV from the FCS program was going to use the Mk44 30mm. So I imagine the GCV would as well.
  3. GD could also bid an ASCOD 2 variant, right?
  4. A bipod was part of the original OCSW plan, but wasn't it shelved well before the rest of the program? Is 37+lbs for an XM307 plus sight and bipod too much to hump? Is that funky, low-recoil action too fragile?
  5. I agree. This round seems more appropriate for a crew-served weapon. Could be a cheaper OCSW-lite that might supplant some M240s from companies and platoons.
  6. Both LCSes rely on their helos to fire torpedoes. They don't have have torpedo tubes themselves. IIRC, there was some discussion about adding an anti-surface mode to lightweight torpedoes, but I don't know if there are any active programs.
  7. An LCS vs an FFG Upgraded Adelaide would be interesting. The ASuW module on the LCS has its missile-armed MH-60R and Netfires-PAM. Penguin/Hellfire vs SM-2/ESSM/Phalanx doesn't sound like a viable option. On the other hand, if the MH-60R can keep the two S-70B-2s from the Adelaide at bay, or even shoot them down with a lucky Hellfire shot, then the LCS could win the scouting battle. Could it then get close enough for Netfires shots? Would the Adelaide pick it up on ESM, sonar or radar first? 60 PAMs would be hard to defend against if the LCS got within range. However their relatively small warhead might require a number of hits to mission kill the Adelaide. If it came down to a LOS battle, I have a feeling 60 PAMs wouldn't win against Harpoons, SM-2s and ESSMs in surface-to-surface mode.
  8. Why do orbital mini-sats need to be launched from ships or subs? Why can't they just be launched from CONUS?
  9. I thought the open bolt requirement was dropped.
  10. Certainly there would be work (though foreign navies use the CH-47 for amphibious ops today). It would have been considerably less work, however, than developing a completely new tilt rotor aircraft from scratch.
  11. Are the saddle tanks problematic? Is marinization especially difficult?
  12. Merit-wise, other than speed and politics, what were the big downsides to an H-47 bid? It should be able to beat an MV-22 for payload to range performance. The CSAR-X variant (and MH-47G) supposedly would fly 8,500 lbs (34 Marines @ 250lbs each?) to a 300nm radius. That's more than the V-22's required 18-24 Marines to a 200nm radius. (I don't know if that 8,500lbs includes armament and gunners.)
  13. I suppose they stood to make a lot more money from V-22 development and production.
  14. What about a navalized CH-47? Was it ever considered? Folded, I bet it's not much bigger than a folded V-22. CH-47s might reduce the number of deck spots, given their greater length with rotors turning, but wouldn't have the same maintenance issues or deck melting exhaust. And it could carry a LOT more (though not as rapidly).
  • Create New...