Look at what I saw this week M8 AGS

[robert.munsey]

I was down at Benning this week and was able to get my picture next to one of the old M8 AGS that BAE had on display.

[kato13]

Would be nice if there were a battalion of these supplementing the 82nd.

Edit.
I am going to have to see if anyone has made a 6mm(1/285th) version of the M8. It always was a fav of mine.

[robert.munsey]

Well the MPF requirement is for a Company per light Brigade, including the the Aiborne BCTs.

[ArmySGT.]

I always wondered if the program would have been more successful with a universal turret. A turret that could be mounted to any hull with the right sized ring.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I always wondered if the program would have been more successful with a universal turret. A turret that could be mounted to any hull with the right sized ring.

I am not to sure. We have to remember that the AGS was being produced by Unitied Defense (the maker of the Bradley at the time) and the MGS was produced by GDLS (the maker of the Abrams). The two were big competitor's at the time for defense contracts and they did not share.
The AGS's problem was that it was in competition with other big programs in an era of Army down sizing (90's after the wall) and it fell victim to budget realities (kind of the same problem now....).
The MGS the problem was two great defense giants that were competing for the interim armor vehicle (IAV) that would become the Stryker family of vehicles. The Army at THAT time wanted a common wheel set of vehicles. The AGS out performed all of the competition during the platform demonstration, but alas the Army was looking for one manufacture to big a family of vehicles (and those must have wheels).
Now if we had Government rights to the turret design, then we might have been able to tell GDLS to use the AGS turret and auto loader. But alas that is not the way it works in acquisition in the real world.
So we are stuck with what we have, that is no platform for the airborne and light guys to shoot quicker, faster, that is armored against arty/small arms fire and can fire on the move while the ATGM operators mainly stay static and are vulnerable to fire (both indirect and direct).

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

I am not to sure. We have to remember that the AGS was being produced by Unitied Defense (the maker of the Bradley at the time) and the MGS was produced by GDLS (the maker of the Abrams). The two were big competitor's at the time for defense contracts and they did not share.
The AGS's problem was that it was in competition with other big programs in an era of Army down sizing (90's after the wall) and it fell victim to budget realities (kind of the same problem now....).
The MGS the problem was two great defense giants that were competing for the interim armor vehicle (IAV) that would become the Stryker family of vehicles. The Army at THAT time wanted a common wheel set of vehicles. The AGS out performed all of the competition during the platform demonstration, but alas the Army was looking for one manufacture to big a family of vehicles (and those must have wheels).
Now if we had Government rights to the turret design, then we might have been able to tell GDLS to use the AGS turret and auto loader. But alas that is not the way it works in acquisition in the real world.
So we are stuck with what we have, that is no platform for the airborne and light guys to shoot quicker, faster, that is armored against arty/small arms fire and can fire on the move while the ATGM operators mainly stay static and are vulnerable to fire (both indirect and direct).

A damning indictment of our foolish and backwards procurement system run by self serving miscreants.

I hope the changes wrought by SecDef Rumsfeld that allowed companies to solicit directly (as they used to before McNamara) to the Department of Defense have continued. Bringing their new systems or refinements directly without the long, long, (often conflicting) request for proposal process.

Still, I think a universal turret program based on a universal turret ring size would be a giant and productive leap forward.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Still, I think a universal turret program based on a universal turret ring size would be a giant and productive leap forward.

When you say 'Universal turret program" what are you referring to?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

When you say 'Universal turret program" what are you referring to?

A base turret system that would fit the M1, M2, Stryker, M109, etc.

I suppose I should wish for a universal turret ring first. The Cadillac Gage one meter turret is an excellent example. A dozen different configurations.

[Sith]

Cool. It's good to see BAE is still shopping these things around.

[Olefin]

when I was working there I remember them taking them out on the test track and running them from time to time when they were going to show them off either at a show or to a general who wanted to see them in person