http://defensetech.org/2005/09/19/rapid-fire-91905/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:55:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://defensetech.org/2005/09/19/rapid-fire-91905/comment-page-1/#comment-112291 Ranger25 Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:20:37 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=187#comment-112291 The MTTCS was designed to augment the light infantry divisions with additional mobile and fixed protection along with becoming a combat multiplier. It is designed to be broken down into smaller usable interlocking sections for facilities or use smaller sections for 2 man protection as well. The system can be used to store the "go to war" equipment" all the way up to full scale operations to include MOUT TOC operations, facilities or fortifications support. Many "sea boxes" were used in OIF/OEF for fixed defensive positions thus costing literally hundreds of millions in rental leasing costs in the first year alone. MTTCS when placed on the back of the medium tactical vehicles allows for full 360 degree firing capablity to any truck along with multiple egress ports as well. Many have believed that this was to be suggested to be a replacement vehicle, it is an augmentation to the existing fleet of trucks. Rear area protection, modular medical and C4ISR integration capablity is also an intended use of the armored module. Later variants will include PLS on and off loading capablity. Combat and Combat Service Support (CS&CSS)units are in the present fight, they must retain the ablity to be flexible and support light forces once they have delivered either supplies or troops. MTTCS is the solution to address those issues, it is not to be considered as a replacement for any mechanized armored vehicle. The MTTCS was designed to augment the light infantry divisions with additional mobile and fixed protection along with becoming a combat multiplier. It is designed to be broken down into smaller usable interlocking sections for facilities or use smaller sections for 2 man protection as well.
The system can be used to store the “go to war” equipment” all the way up to full scale operations to include MOUT TOC operations, facilities or fortifications support.
Many “sea boxes” were used in OIF/OEF for fixed defensive positions thus costing literally hundreds of millions in rental leasing costs in the first year alone.
MTTCS when placed on the back of the medium tactical vehicles allows for full 360 degree firing capablity to any truck along with multiple egress ports as well.
Many have believed that this was to be suggested to be a replacement vehicle, it is an augmentation to the existing fleet of trucks.
Rear area protection, modular medical and C4ISR integration capablity is also an intended use of the armored module.
Later variants will include PLS on and off loading capablity.
Combat and Combat Service Support (CS&CSS)units are in the present fight, they must retain the ablity to be flexible and support light forces once they have delivered either supplies or troops.
MTTCS is the solution to address those issues, it is not to be considered as a replacement for any mechanized armored vehicle.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2005/09/19/rapid-fire-91905/comment-page-1/#comment-7922 Ray Raymond Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:12:26 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=187#comment-7922 Please keep me up-dated on all news. Wonderful concept! Please keep me up-dated on all news. Wonderful concept!

]]> http://defensetech.org/2005/09/19/rapid-fire-91905/comment-page-1/#comment-112290 Darren Osten Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:45:29 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=187#comment-112290 The MX article was interesting and about as fair as you can expect from the NYT. It did seem to imply that all of the US's eggs were in the MX basket without mentioning out other ICBM's and especially the SLBM's. You think it would kill the writer the at least acknowledge that Reagan's strategy had merit. By the way, good luck keeping that Fishbed up and running. The MX article was interesting and about as fair as you can expect from the NYT. It did seem to imply that all of the US’s eggs were in the MX basket without mentioning out other ICBM’s and especially the SLBM’s. You think it would kill the writer the at least acknowledge that Reagan’s strategy had merit.
By the way, good luck keeping that Fishbed up and running.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2005/09/19/rapid-fire-91905/comment-page-1/#comment-7919 Pedestrian Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:56:20 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=187#comment-7919 Someone tell me the advantage of MTTCS over LAVs and Stryker. Someone tell me the advantage of MTTCS over LAVs and Stryker.

]]>