Sur l’état de l’armée américaine

[g4lly]

il me semblait qu'elle avait gardé des "notions montagne" (mais aucune comparaison avec se que font nos chasseurs Alpins ) ,mais sa date d'un vieux RAIDs l'info que je donne ...

L'USMC a pas une école d’aguerrissement montagne, je suppose que certaine unité doivent être un minimum spécialisé dans le combat de montagne ou polaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Warfare_Training_Center

L'Army a aussi une école de montagne ... surement pour former les éléments spécialisé de la 10th.

[S-37 Berkut]

NN, sans être comparatif au chasseurs Alpins, les 10th possède certains équipement plus adapté aux zones montagneuses ou rocheuses, comme des matelas Ridge Therm-A-Rest ou du matos de franchissement de montagne. C'est une dévision d'infanterie légère qui est l'une des principal division US à être employées en Astan. Elle a fait aussi un passage en Irak en 2007.

Sinon, je suis tombé sur ces photos sur le site militaryphotos.net

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=1325&pictureid=18144

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=1325&pictureid=18142

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=1325&pictureid=18143

Elles dates de 2009. Apparement c'était un teste.

Autre bariolage inconue apparement testé en Astan.  

 

   

Les photos proviennent du forum IACMC

[Serge]

Le premier est du A-TACS. Je connais plus le nom du fabriquant. Il faut aller sur Atacs.com

On trouve des produits dans cette couleur. Tactical Concealment a sorti des guilly suit dernièrement avec.

Ils sont peut être dans la compétition de camouflage phase-4.

Le second est un camouflage universel étudier par Bulldog à la demande des Rangers.

[Gibbs le Cajun]

Elle est stationné dans Fort Drum dans l'Etat de New York, fait des entrainements dans ce qui reste de forêts dans le Nord Est Américain et les Appalaches et elle est également qualifié pour les zones arctiques :

http://www.drum.army.mil/Pages/index.aspx

C'est pas une division ''alpine''.

effectivement ,sa rejoint se que je disais  ;) =)

L'USMC a pas une école d’aguerrissement montagne, je suppose que certaine unité doivent être un minimum spécialisé dans le combat de montagne ou polaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Warfare_Training_Center

L'Army a aussi une école de montagne ... surement pour former les éléments spécialisé de la 10th.

affirmatif pour les Marines .

à mon avis oui ,il doit y avoir un petit pool d'éléments de cette division formés à la montagne par l'Army .

sa me fait penser à un truc ,quand on parle des Gurkhas ont s'imagine que venant du Népal (donc Himalaya  ) ils sont apte au travail type combat en Montagne ,vie etc ... comme le font  nos chasseurs Alpins .

se sont des montagnards paysans (assez verte comme zones ) , ils ont les particularité des gens vivant en altitude et donc une capacité physique importante ,mais ils n'ont pas de point commun en se qui concerne la spécificité montagne tel que nous la définissons (ski ,escalade etc ... ).

un détachement de Gurkhas était venu au 2°REG ,régiment génie de la brigade de montagne ,et ils ont découvert le matos d'escalade ,et les trucs qu'ont fait en montagne .

ils n'en demeurent pas moins que se sont de superbes combattants  =D

[S-37 Berkut]

Ah merci Serge, décidément ce Serge il connait tout ! =)

[Rob1]

NN, sans être comparatif au chasseurs Alpins, les 10th possède certains équipement plus adapté aux zones montagneuses ou rocheuses, comme des matelas Ridge Therm-A-Rest ou du matos de franchissement de montagne. C'est une dévision d'infanterie légère qui est l'une des principal division US à être employées en Astan. Elle a fait aussi un passage en Irak en 2007.

Je serais curieux de voir si c'est du matos spécifique à cette division ou fourni en fonction du milieu ou du déploiement.

A la base, la 10th a créé en temps que division d'infanterie légère en même temps que d'autres (6th, 7th, 10th et 25th) dans les années 80. Son nom a été changé en "Montagne" pour un aspect historique.

A l'époque du 11 septembre, il ne restait que trois divisions d'infanterie légère, la 10th et les célèbres 82nd et 101st Airbornes qui avaient en sus une spécialité (para et aéromobile - "Air Assault" pour faire plus guerrier). Comme les "deux célèbres" étaient les stars et étaient présentent dans tous les plans d'urgence (et la 82nd avait une partie en stand-by permanent), la 10th était la moins bien entretenue (deux brigades au lieu de trois) et en même temps la plus déployées (mandats Bosnie, Sinaï...), ce qui a été l'objet d'une controverse lors de l'élection présidentielle de 2000 d'ailleurs.

Le manque de formation montagne a d'ailleurs été une des nombreuses critiques qui ont volé dans les post-mortems de l'opération Anaconda. Deux reporters dans deux articles différents ont d'ailleurs recueilli cette phrase lapidaire : "we don't do mountains". Si je me souviens bien, à l'époque, l'US Army n'avait qu'un centre de formation montagne qui ne formait que quelques dizaines d'élèves par an, et une formation uniquement individuelle. Pour ne rien arranger, pendant Anaconda, des conseils des manuels officiels ont été oubliés alors que certains

(genre quantité d'eau nécessaire) étaient bien fondés.

Bon, ca a dû évoluer depuis, notamment sur l'aguerrissement avant déploiement, mais sur l'organisation, autant que je sache, la 10th reste infanterie standard.

[S-37 Berkut]

Comme l'a dit Collectionneur, elle s'entraine dans les Appalaches et est qualifié zones arctiques.

Donc probablement du matos comme du GEN III level 7. Ce qui n'est pas non plus très courant chez le grunt de base.

[S-37 Berkut]

Selon les militaires américains, le canon électromagnétique pourrait remplacer dans un avenir proche l'artillerie classique

http://fr.rian.ru/infographie/20101217/188150790.html

[collectionneur]

L'article date de l'année dernière. Comme indiqué sur d'autres fils sur la marine US ou la technologie, projet à priori supprimé  :P

[S-37 Berkut]

Dommage. :-[

[fonctionZ2]

ça ressemble à de la science-fiction. Quel serait la source d'énergie? Il n'y aura pas de réseau électrique disponible sur un champ de bataille.

[Kiriyama]

C'est pour bateau.

[kotai]

ça ressemble à de la science-fiction. Quel serait la source d'énergie? Il n'y aura pas de réseau électrique disponible sur un champ de bataille.

Un moteur thermique peut suffire à alimenter (pas un petit bien sûr mais plus un modèle de chantier).

[Connorfra]

L'article date de l'année dernière. Comme indiqué sur d'autres fils sur la marine US ou la technologie, projet à priori supprimé  :P

Je me méfie des programmes supprimés n'oublions pas que la technologie furtive du RAH66 Comanche était censé être abandonnée ou du moins mise en "stand by" et  lors du raid Neptune spear contre Ben Laden, des dérivés secret du UH60 furtif vraisemblablement issu de cette technologie, extrêmement silencieux et ayant leurré les radars pakistanais ont mystérieusement fait leurs apparitions, alors qui sais si se genre de canons ne sera pas développé en secret et ressortie quand les américains voudront montrer à leurs adversaires qui est le patron lol sans parler de tout ce qu'ils planquent encore.  O0

[alexandreVBCI]

L’entreprise Paul Boyé, qui possède un site de production à Bédarieux et dont le siège social est au Vernet (Haute-Garonne), remporte un énorme marché auprès du Pentagone, le quartier général du département de la Défense des États-Unis. Obtenu en association avec Tennessee Apparel Corp et Creative Apparel Associates, deux sociétés américaines, le premier contrat d’un montant de 129 M$, soit plus de 96 M€, prévoit la fabrication de tenues de protection Nucléaire, Biologique et Chimique (NBC) à fournir d’ici janvier 2017.

http://www.midilibre.fr/2012/03/02/l-armee-americaine-equipee-par-paul-boye,465442.php

[actyon]

L'armée américaine a ordonné 51 radar mobile Firefinder AN/TPQ-53

L'armée américaine a signé un contrat avec Lockheed Martin pour la fourniture de radar mobile (SAR) an/tpq-53 Firefinder, rapporte Lenta.Ru en référence aux professionnels de la post-standard et la défense. Le coût de l'accord s'élève à 881 millions de dollars.

Le contrat est de trois ans. Au cours de la première année de l'accord, les forces armées américaines devraient obtenir 12 Firefinder radar d'artillerie. Le coût total de ce parti fera 166 millions de dollars. Au total, selon le contrat, l'armée américaine recevra jusqu'à 51 radars an/tpq-53. L'accord prévoit également pour les tests de radar et de la formation des forces armées.

La fonction principale du radar an/tpq-53 Firefinder - détection des projectiles ennemis, y compris des roquettes, l'artillerie et des obus de mortier. Le système peut détecter des coquilles dans des directions différentes, pour fixer la trajectoire de leur mouvement, un lieu d'incendie et le lieu de l'attaque projetée. Le radar est placé sur la plate-forme du camion, qui fournit une grande mobilité de l'armée et la capacité de mener des opérations de combat dans les zones reculées.

Radar an/tpq-53 Firefinder significativement supérieure à celle des caractéristiques de standing dans un service des États-Unis AN/TPQ-36. En an/tpq-53 plus grand rayon de détection de coquilles et une meilleure précision de la détection de l'incendie à une probabilité d'erreur inférieur.

Plus tôt, les forces américaines ont ordonné 32 radar Lockheed Martin an/tpq-53 Firefinder. À ce jour, 19 stations de radar ont été reçues.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=fr&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B6%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B9%2B%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B8%26hl%3Dfr%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D619%26prmd%3Dimvns&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=ru&u=http://warsonline.info/raketi-i-artilleriya/armiya-ssha-zakazala-51-mobilnuiu-rls-an-tpq-53-firefinder.html&usg=ALkJrhipjPR_9F7eapb3OCzY9GukUkLpFg

[alexandreVBCI]

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, April 11, 2012) -- The Army is looking to replace its fleet of 117 C-12 aircraft with something called a "Future Fixed Wing Utility Aircraft."

The C-12 Huron is used by the Army for personnel transport, intelligence gathering and reconnaissance, as well as carrying cargo.

"The biggest program that we have got coming up, and of course this is going to replace all the Army C-12s, we're looking at putting a program together called the Future Fixed Wing Utility Aircraft," said Col. Brian Tachias, the Army's project manager for fixed-wing aircraft.

He said a requirements document for that program is now "working in the Pentagon." When that is approved, he said, it will allow the Army to begin an analysis of alternatives, and eventually define the requirements for the program in a capabilities development document. If approved, that will allow the Army "to go out and procure the next fixed-wing utility aircraft."

Tachias spoke last week in Nashville, Tenn., at the Army Aviation Association of America conference there. He heads up the Army's latest project office, focused entirely on fixed-wing aircraft. The Project Office for Fixed-Wing Aircraft stood up in October 2011, and has a "leadership role over all of the Army fixed-wing aircraft," Tachias said.

Before the official stand-up date last year, the office managed about 256 Army aircraft. Today, the office manages about 366 fixed-wing aircraft. The consolidation of those aircraft under the oversight of one project office came after a push by the Army's vice chief of staff to centrally manage fixed-wing aircraft in one office because there are "a lot of efficiencies to be gained by consolidating them under one leadership role," Tachias said.

Tachias said there's been an estimated 10-15 percent cost savings by having the Army's entire fleet of fixed-wing aircraft managed by the office. He also said that managing them in one program means increased safety. The Army, he said, is "managing these programs under one Army standard to make sure we are providing safe aircraft for the pilots to fly, and of course consolidating the configuration management under one system, that way we don't have all these different configurations of all these different aircraft."

The colonel said that since October, the office has conducted 111 airworthiness releases on the aircraft it manages.

Among the aircraft the office manages are those used by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Golden Knights, and the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The office also handles special operations fixed-wing aircraft and aircraft that do intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance work.

In the near term, the project office is also buying aircraft for the Army Test and Evaluation Command, which has four aircraft that need replacement. The office has also procured new aircraft for the Golden Knights.

Recently, Tachias said, the office has stood up a foreign military sales cell and is working cases with the United Arab Emirates, Columbia, Egypt and Greece.

http://www.army.mil/article/77621/New_fixed_wing_aircraft_to_replace_C_12s/

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/13/army-wants-to-replace-c-12-fleet/

[alexandreVBCI]

L'US Army et les Marines recherchent des ponts d'assaut modulaires.

Le Pentagone vient d'attribuer deux contrats pour le développement de prototypes de ponts d'assaut modulaires pour venir renforcer les capacités de franchissement de l'armée de terre qui dispose d'une quarantaine de M104 Wolvernine (chassis de M1A1) livré à partir de 2003 par General Dynamics Land System (firme qui est l'un des deux bénéficiaires de l'attribution d'un montant total de 43 millions de dollars). Dans les années 2006, l'US Army s'était aussi intéressée au BR90 de BAE Systems qui aurait pu être adapté sur des chassis de M1A1 et d'AVLB des Marines.

Pour en savoir plus sur les intentions de l'US Army et les besoins des sapeurs US, aller sur la page PROCNET consacrée au Joint Assault Bridge. Cette page détaille l'historique du projet qui prévoit l'achat de 168 unités par l'US Army et de 29 par les Marines (selon l'appel d'offres du 30 septembre 2011).

L'article :

http://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2012/05/05/l-us-army-et-les-marines-recherchent-des-ponts-d-assaut-modu.html

[Serge]

U.S. Army Maps Out Postwar Vehicle Needs

Jun. 11, 2012 - 08:34AM by PAUL McLEARY

The U.S. Army is debating what to do with its mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, such as this Husky, after the war. (U.S. Army)

As the fiscal year 2013 defense budget continues to be hashed out on Capitol Hill, the U.S. Army finds itself in a curious position. While the service is putting a positive spin on the fact that it is losing about 80,000 soldiers over the next several years, leadership is pushing away more funding for tanks and heavy armor that the service says it neither wants nor needs.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington on May 30, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter took a shot across the bow of the House Armed Services Committee, which is leading the fight to add hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tanks and heavily armored vehicles to the Pentagon’s request.

“When something is added to our budget that is not needed, we are forced to take out something that matters,” he said.

Carter added that when the Pentagon is forced to hold on to older systems, it cannot buy new systems with new capabilities, and in terms of vehicle modernization, the past 10 years of rapid acquisition divorced from an overall strategy has been “a lost decade for the Army.”

Regardless of whether that is true, the Army faces significant challenges in sizing and repairing its fleet, while working to bring new systems on line within the next several years.

As Congress and the Army continue to battle over wants vs. needs, many of the Army’s largest vehicle programs have uncertain futures, while others have a clear path ahead.

MRAPs

The Pentagon’s Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Joint Program Office has procured more than 27,000 MRAPs (from several suppliers in several variants), for about $50 billion since 2007 for the Army and Marine Corps, giving the services a mixed fleet. Included in this count is the MRAP’s smaller cousin, the MRAP-All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV), about 8,000 of which have been purchased from Oshkosh.

The Army and Marine Corps are still debating what to do with the hulking vehicles once the last units pull out of Afghanistan, with the services saying they envision an enduring requirement for the vehicle. The Army has about 21,000 MRAPs, and Army Col. Mark Barbosa, division chief of focused logistics in the G-8 office, recently offered some clarity as to the vehicle’s future. About 11,000 MRAPs will be prepositioned around the world, while another 7,000 MRAPs “will go into [pre-deployment] Army units like transportation companies and echelon-above brigade medical,” he wrote in an email to Defense News. About 2,000 of those 7,000 will be placed in training sets around the world. These plans are still being developed, and the Army most recently said it wants to keep 18,259 MRAPs.

The Marine Corps has estimated that it could cost anywhere from $124 million to $162 million to sustain up to 2,652 MRAPs from 2014 to 2018, according to a May Government Accountability Office report. The Corps has already included $144.4 million for MRAPs between 2014 and 2018 in its budget plans.

Humvees

The iconic AM General-made vehicle has been ferrying troops since the mid-1980s, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pushed the vehicle to its breaking point. The Army has pointedly said there is no place for Humvees on future battlefields, but it seems the service is unsure of what to do with the 60,000 up-armored variants in its inventory.

In its fiscal 2013 budget, the service scrapped its Medium Expanded Capacity Vehicle (MECV) program — envisioned as a way to up-armor and modernize the Humvee — which had already spurred companies like AM General, Oshkosh Defense, Navistar Defense, BAE Systems, and Textron and Granite Tactical Vehicles to develop designs. Instead of modernizing the Humvee, the Army wants to go all in on its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).

But the Army is still trying to decide what to do with $20 million in its fiscal 2012 budget that was slated for the MECV competition. The money may be used for running a survivability competition among possible suitors, however that might make JLTV advocates nervous. One competitor said that while he doesn’t see the testing as a risk to the JLTV, it represents “an opportunity for the Army to take a look at survivability improvements that can be added to [Humvee] reset already underway without real increase in cost. Current reset does not address survivability. Question is why reset when you can ‘recap’ for the same price?”

The Army has asked for $270 million in fiscal 2013 to address its depot recap efforts — work that is not scheduled to include any survivability enhancements.

Stryker

There is less controversy surrounding the Northrop Grumman-made Stryker, which carries nine infantrymen and has had multiple, mostly successful deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Both houses of Congress fully supported the 2013 budget request of $318 million to procure 58 new Strykers. The Army has so far taken delivery of 4,100 of 4,466 Strykers under contract and is refitting 760 Strykers to a double-V hull configuration, which offers better underbelly protection from roadside bombs. Army officials said the new variant has been successful in Afghanistan.

On May 24, Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, signed a Milestone Decision Authority for the Stryker family of vehicles. That means the Army “now has the right to make its own decisions in regard to the Stryker fleet — from modernization to the conversion of flat-bottom Strykers to double-V hull Stryker vehicles” a General Dynamics representative said. A decision is also expected soon on a $60 million pilot double-V hull program in which 49 flat-bottom Strykers are converted in addition to the 760 refits.

The Stryker also has an edge in Army modernization plans because its electronics infrastructure can accommodate the service’s Capability Set 13 — a new communications suite that includes the developmental Warfighter Information Network-Tactical system. The system, which is scheduled to begin delivery to Afghanistan-bound brigade combat teams this fall, is difficult to operate on Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles.

Abrams

The Abrams tank has been the subject of some debate, with the Army and Congress sparring over how to fund the platform’s modernization and keep General Dynamics’ Abrams plant in Lima, Ohio, open.

The Army wants to wrap up its Abrams buy in 2014 and hold off on upgrading its fleet until 2017, which will mean shutting down Abrams production for three years. The House Armed Services Committee is worried that the shutdown will not only harm the “intellectual industrial base” but also smaller suppliers who will not be able to make up the business they lose during those three years. The governing body added $181 million to the Pentagon’s budget for the M1 upgrade project, while the Senate Armed Services Committee reduced that number to $91 million to fund 33 additional tanks that would sustain production through fiscal 2014. The original White House request was for $74 million to continue the Abrams M1A2 system enhancement package. The fight over the Lima plant and the Abrams program has been hot for the past two budget cycles, and will likely come to a head in the 2013 cycle.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

The Army requested $148 million for upgrades to its BAE Systems-produced M2 Bradley fighting vehicle in fiscal 2013, while the House Armed Services Committee added $140 million to the bottom line to bring the proposal up to $288 million. The House Appropriations defense subcommittee markup stated that while the committee supported the Army’s scheduled work to upgrade the track, suspension and forward-looking infrared systems on the Bradleys, more was needed. The extra $140 million would pay for upgrades to the “power train and electrical system, in order to better support the technology advances of the Joint Tactical Radio System, Battle Command System, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, and Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared,” the bill stated. Without the extra work, BAE Systems’ Bradley plant in York, Pa., would have to be temporarily shuttered, which the company says could cost $750 million to reopen in three years.

Ground Combat Vehicle

After developing a new battlefield communications network, the Army’s biggest priority is the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which would replace the Bradley in the Army’s 16 active and eight National Guard heavy brigade combat teams.

The GCV represents the Army’s second attempt at developing a next-generation infantry carrier after the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle was canceled in 2009. The service issued two $450 million technology development contracts to teams led by BAE and General Dynamics in August, but while the competitors continue work on their designs, the Army is also conducting a $45 million non-developmental evaluation at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. There, the Army is putting the Bradley A3, a turretless Bradley, a double-V hull Stryker, a Swedish CV9035 and the Israeli Namer through operational evaluations, while also evaluating the German Puma, the Russian BMP and the VBCI infantry fighting vehicle, produced by France’s Nexter off-site. All of these evaluations will inform a separate analysis of alternatives that must be completed before the program can move beyond the technology development phase.

And there’s the cost. The Army estimates that the average unit production cost for the GCV will be $9 million to $10.5 million. That rises to $11 million to $13 million when factoring in spare parts. The Pentagon’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, however, puts the average unit production cost between $16 million and $17 million. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted to fully support the budget request of $639.9 million for GCV development.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle

The effort to replace roughly 3,800 M113s in heavy brigade combat teams so far has mustered only $74 million in fiscal 2013 funding, and both congressional committees have fully funded the request.

But that modest outlay won’t last. The program should run at about $1.7 billion through 2017, when full-rate production is scheduled to begin, though in April the Office of the Secretary of Defense granted the Army approval to move the start of production up to 2015, if possible.

BAE Systems has said it plans to offer a version of its M2 Bradley, while General Dynamics plans to submit its Stryker. Navistar has also signaled that it wants to team with industry partners on a design.

Army documents presented at an April 24 industry day state that the vehicle’s average unit manufacturing cost should run $1 million to $1.7 million, and that the service is looking for a platform that has an off-road mobility comparable to the Abrams while offering protection against “direct fire, indirect fire and underbelly threat.”

An analysis of alternatives should be complete by June, with a request for proposals due between the first and third quarters of fiscal 2013. Army leaders have said on several occasions that the program will likely take advantage of existing platforms as opposed to being a new build effort, and Congress has taken a keen interest in the program as a way to keep domestic production lines open.

JLTV

When the service scuttled the MECV in favor of the JLTV, it essentially threw the door open for industry to go all in for the 55,000 JLTVs the Army and Marine Corps are interested in purchasing. While the program has been in development since 2005, it was thrown wide open on March 27 when submissions for the engineering and manufacturing development phase (EMD) were due. Until that point, three teams had been competing for the contract, led by BAE Systems, General Tactical Vehicles (a joint venture of General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General) and Lockheed Martin.

On March 27, Navistar Defense announced that it was leaving the team headed by BAE Systems to strike out on its own, while BAE said it was turning to an engine made by commercial manufacturer Ford for its family of JLTVs. At the same time, AM General submitted an independent bid for the program, and Oshkosh Defense — which was shut out in the technology-development phase — also re-entered the program with a new design.

The down-select of winning bidders for the EMD phase has been pushed to July, when as many as three teams may receive an EMD contract for 22 prototype vehicles. A low-rate initial production award is still expected in 2015. The Army is planning on a unit cost in the $225,000 range, before armor packages are added.

When the Future Combat Systems was canceled in April 2009, it left a huge hole in the Army’s modernization efforts. The program, which burned through $18 billion in an attempt to supply soldiers with everything from communications and surveillance equipment to new weapons and several new manned and unmanned vehicles, remains a cloud over Army acquisition efforts. Everything the service has done since can be seen as a reaction to the mistakes made in that program. Schedule slippages, retracted requests for proposals and the succession of open competitions over the past three years are all a product of that modernization dream, deferred.

[S-37 Berkut]

The Tank Urban Survival Kit, or TUSK, is a series of improvements to the M1 Abrams intended to improve fighting ability in urban environments

[alexandreVBCI]

La DARPA veut que les soldats américains puissent grimper aux murs, comme spiderman.

Everyone knows the brain-trust over at DARPA has been looking at and funding projects for Iron Man-like exoskeletons, but lets not forget about their pursuit of Spider-Man-like capabilities for troops as well.

Known as the “Z-Man” program, the Defense Department has been funding research into “biologically inspired aids” to enable soldiers to scale vertical walls in full combat gear without ropes or ladders.

Suite :

http://defensetech.org/2012/08/10/building-soldiers-spider-man-suits/#more-18094

[Tancrède]

Toujours impressionnant ce genre de trucs, à un petit détail près: se soulever le long d'un mur avec ces machins et avec tout le barda, ça suppose toujours une putain de force musculaire, surtout quand on fait ça après des heures d'opération, des jours de marches (et parfois combats) en zone hostile, et/ou des mois en déploiement (stress et fatigue accumulés, usure musculaire). Même à froid, avec l'équipement et le barda, ça doit pas être si évident, aussi adhérent/accrocheur que soit le machin. On oublie facilement que Spider Man a aussi une force surhumaine :lol:.

[ekov]

peut etre que dans 20 ans avec des exosquelettes fin, souple...

[Rob1]

Ouais, enfin, escalader une falaise ce n'est pas non plus le bout du monde. Dans le bouquin de Dalton Fury, il me semble qu'ils se font une petite séance de varape pour débarquer dans un village d'un côté inattendu.

[Tancrède]

Oh je dis pas que c'est infaisable, juste que résoudre le problème de l'adhérence à la surface escaladée ne change rien à l'effort nécessaire pour soulever un soldat tout équipé (un machin qui pèse son poids quoi), qui n'est pas forcément tout frais. Par ailleurs, est-ce que ça enlèvera le besoin de cordes et autres équipements pour certaines situation? Après, s'il ne s'agit à l'arrivée que d'un truc pas cher, qui pèse rien et se positionne sur une paire de gants, genouillères et des points d'attache sur les pompes, cool, ça aidera sans emmerder; mais ça doit être plus pour faire le singe en environnement urbain, pour passer des murs et murets divers.... Si c'est rien de cher et rien d'encombrant, du vraiment tout petit matos indolore dans le paquetage standard, c'est génial.

Dans le bouquin de Dalton Fury, il me semble qu'ils se font une petite séance de varape pour débarquer dans un village d'un côté inattendu

C'était tout le monde en paquetage complet, ou quelques-uns qui se sont allégés pour prendre de ce côté pendant que d'autres monopolisaient l'attention et qu'un ou deux autres gardaient le paquetage de ceux qui grimpaient? Ca fait des situations différentes, pas forcément toujours répétables.