Recent comments in /f/news

usrevenge t1_jd9mwrq wrote

We been talking about sending tanks for months.

How long does it take to throw any working m1a1 without anything classified on a ship and send it to Poland.

This could have honestly been a good rapid response scenario to train our logistics under. A hypothetical "we have nothing elsewhere in the world how fast could we help this area"

0

L_Cranston_Shadow t1_jd9lle2 wrote

Not likely, unless you try it in a poor or less populated area. It would be incredibly risky to try to stick it in your pocket and go through a metal detector or a millimeter wave scanner, also known as an Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machine, and plastic explosives stick out like a sore thumb on even the older x-ray machines, and especially the newer CT machines that modern airports in wealthier and more developed countries use for baggage, and at least in the US, increasingly (smaller versions of) at checkpoints.

3

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9j1z5 wrote

With the Lynx, the Redback, and the Griffin II modified variants apart of the proposed submissions for the replacement… its pretty likely it goes into production fast since all 3 variants are in production. Only the BAE / Front Point submittals will be truly new vehicles that would have teething issues.

The army has realized its mistakes in the 2000-2014 era of DoD procurement. Both the army and the navy are showing a preference for modifications to proven systems from other partners (MPF, Constellation-class )

1

Minimum_Intention848 t1_jd9iyua wrote

I *think* "the implication" of the article is that the material may have been planted because an intelligence service didn't like the content of his reporting.

Yes, it's conspiratorial and the author seems to be avoiding coming out and saying it by presenting the editorial timeline instead of verbalizing the theory.

−1

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ievb wrote

Yeah, the mpf was an impressive turnaround time. Then again it's pretty much a role that isn't adequately being filled. I can't imagine a Bradley replacement entering full production that quickly. But maybe not. Maybe it'll be so superior that they'll go full no fucks given. And yes, keeping production lines going is of huge importance. It's why we kept ordering tanks we didn't need. Thankfully congress had the wisdom to do that.

1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9grg7 wrote

For the AMPV they chose to lower the numbers per year so the initial order of 3000 full production vehicles kept the factory line going for a decade in case they wanted to acquire more later on because it would be easier and cheaper to just increase production or keep the line going for longer. So they decided on doing 300 vehicles / year for full production with every year the option to increase production numbers if a new order was done.

With this OMFV program until the prototypes are selected we cannot say. If one of the existing vehicles wins it can obviously go into production much quicker than a fully brand new prototype can. Those details won’t be announced until whoever wins the prototyping stage

With the MPF, the army expects its first unit to be equipped by 2025 (2 years after the winner being announced) from Low rate initial production.

Edit: the army has decided to get its shit together when it comes to procurement. MPF went from bids to prototype to production in 3 years and should realistically be used as the framework for how omfv is going to go.

3

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9dogc wrote

They already have 300 vehicles. They want 3,000. First 3 years of procurement was slated for low rate production

Edit: 3 years of low production followed by 10 years of full rate production with a target of 300 vehicles / year and the option to scale / increase production at will.

The army specifically chose this procurement timeline so the production facility didn’t end immediately if the army decided it needed more 5+ years for now so they specifically slowed down production to be steady over a period of time so the option to scale it to a larger procurement was available.

4