Jump to content

Holy $h!t

Combatvet0311

By Combatvet0311
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

Combatvet0311 Enthusiast

Combatvet0311

Posted
Posted

I was just watching "Future Weapons" and having just seperated from the Marines I was familiar with the new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and all but they just did a special and I am blown away. If it wasn't for the fact it wont be in production till 2011 I might be tempted to re-enlist as a Amtrak crewman. 30 tons, that can move 29 knots in the water w/ almost 3000 HP. That things bad a$$ even without taking its 30mm cannon into consideration. They showed the transformation from land to sea mode and the thing literally transforms, the tracks raise up inside the body and panels slide out to cover them in order to create a smooth bottom so the thing can hydroplane ontop of the water like a Jet Ski. After riding over 500 miles from Kuwait to Baghdad in its predecessor I envy the guys getting to ride in this beast!!!

 

moveland-1.jpg

Wingnut Senior Enthusiast

Wingnut

Posted
Posted

You should have been in Artillery. Our motto was "if you can't truck it, f*** it"...We lived the posh life of sleeping in the sand under the 5 tons.

clm7214 Enthusiast

clm7214

Posted
Posted

I cant wait for that thing to get fielded. Everyones gunna want one. Personally, im tired of fixing all the ancient comm gear in the AAV's. Especially the C-7. That new track will make my life alot easier. And almost every other Marine as well.

clm7214 Enthusiast

clm7214

Posted
Posted

Its meant to replace the AAV P7,C7 and R7. The AAV 7 series is our current amphibious assault vehicle platform. They might come out with a lighter form of the EFV to replace the LAV, or they might just replace both with the EFV. Well have to see.

Combatvet0311 Enthusiast

Combatvet0311

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That may just be a good question, I can see points for both arguements, in order to choose I side though...I will say no. The EFV may had a heavier armament and probably heavy armor. But I dont see it having the likelyhood or a tracked vehicle displacing the wheeled one. It seems that the wheels would have a longer life span then tracks. CLM 7214..you'd know better then I the ratio or maintenance required on a tracked vehicle verse the amount of time that vehicle spends in operation. In my experience the LAVs spend a s**t load of time on the road out doing VCP's and TCP's as well as security...now I think the EFV would require much more down time for regular maintenance then the LAV would so I think they'll keep the LAV on the roads.

  • 2 weeks later...
clm7214 Enthusiast

clm7214

Posted
Posted
That may just be a good question, I can see points for both arguements, in order to choose I side though...I will say no. The EFV may had a heavier armament and probably heavy armor. But I dont see it having the likelyhood or a tracked vehicle displacing the wheeled one. It seems that the wheels would have a longer life span then tracks. CLM 7214..you'd know better then I the ratio or maintenance required on a tracked vehicle verse the amount of time that vehicle spends in operation. In my experience the LAVs spend a s**t load of time on the road out doing VCP's and TCP's as well as security...now I think the EFV would require much more down time for regular maintenance then the LAV would so I think they'll keep the LAV on the roads.

Yeah, I couldnt really see it matching the LAV's mobility. I dont think they have plans to get rid of the LAV considering how they just introduced SNCO MOS's into the LAV field to keep experience in the crews. Before it was more of a billet than an MOS. I think there was even an ALMAR out about it. But, it really wouldnt surprise me if they did have future plans to replace the LAV considering how many new vehicle platforms we are getting. I saw MV-22 Ospreys flying over and the new Cougar trucks driving around this week at the Duce Niner.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      The filtering to wear relationship goes like this:      'Relative Engine Life "Factor" new divided by the factor old. So 8/3= 2.67. That result is the multiplier thus if a motor had an effective life of 100K using a filter with a 45 micron rating at a Beta ratio of 75 then a filter with a micron rating of 10 at a Beta of 75 would improve expected engine life to 267,000 miles.    Wear metals are an indirect indicator. Less is better and the motor lives longer but there isn't a multiplier like there is for filtration so well documented. Most of that has to do with the sensitivity of the wear metals tests themselves. The read a 'slice' of the spectrum but not the absolute values for the entire spectrum. So a general indicator that is used WITH the results of other tests. Two others considered in this post.    There is also the influence of corrosive wear which may be seen in the wear metals but separate from load based or viscosity mitigated indication. It's a small graph but the gray line is wear vs the TBN/TAN crossover. Not as useful as it used to be as there are now new chemistries for acid remediation that don't show up in standard UAO testing. They will catch up or be found liars. Only two possible outcomes, eh?             
    • mikeyk101
      TCM Tuning 6L80E

      By mikeyk101 · Posted

      One thing that comes up over and over is that the torque converters are the weak link. Many of the failed transmissions have the same thing in common. The torque converter grenades and then metal torque converter shards end up destroying the transmission. One of the best things you can do is if your transmission is still fully functional, change out to one of the aftermarket billet torque converters. There are several good choices mentioned in different threads here to make your choice. After that, then you can decide about trans tuning. My trans failed at around 95,000 miles. It got replaced under the GM protection plan. The remanufactured trans comes with a 100,000 mile /3 year warranty. I still have just under 1 year left. So far, so good. As long as it's still working good next year, an aftermarket torque converter is going to get installed early spring. If the trans and OEM torque converter fail by then, I will get it replaced under warranty and immediately have an aftermarket torque converter installed. A warranty replacement trans of a replacement trans will no longer have the warranty so I will bulletproof it from the get go.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Gas Prices

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      You got'a be cooking right now. Just looked at the weather map. Yuck!    We are right back to $4 today.    
    • CamGTP
      Gas Prices

      By CamGTP · Posted

      Pushing $4.00 a gallon in most places, still $3.75 in town but it's going to spike tomorrow for sure.   Diesel back up to $4.60-5.00.
    • calgator73
      LCA bolts

      By calgator73 · Posted

      I really appreciate the response.  I guess I was confused about torque angle vs torque angle yield.  The individual bolts don't have a warning on reuse but the part number for the LCA nuts does.   Regarding the purpose of the moog grease fittings on their bolts .. Guessing to reduce possibility of corrosion locking the cams or seizing to the bushing inserts.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...