Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

SH_MM last won the day on November 2

SH_MM had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SH_MM

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,825 profile views
  1. SH_MM

    CV-90, why so much love ?

  2. Forecast International's old report on the TH 495 mentions an AGS version in the section "variants": I don't think that they ever made an AGS prototype, but the six-wheeeld TH 495 prototype was fitted with two different medium caliber turrets.
  3. SH_MM

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    I don't know if this is an actual possibilty, but this is what I think any company with such an advantage (i.e. having already sold a vehicle to Australia using several components that components that can be shared with the LAND 400 phase 3 offer) should try.
  4. The turret of the Griffin 3 was a mock-up, so you are contradicting yourself quite a bit...
  5. SH_MM

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    I don't think Rheinmetall has released a list of components or a percentage figure, but claimed "high commonality". In general the optics should have common parts (commander's sight is identical, gunner's sight is a modified version of the commander's sight), fire control system parts could be common to both vehicles, the armament is identical and the man-machine interface (displays, controls, etc.) could be similar. The smoke grenade launchers and SAS sensors are also used on both versions of the turret, but in case of the Lance 2.0 turret, they are integrated into the structure rather than being external modules. Regardless what the actual percentage of common parts is, the commonality between the two Lance turret versions will be the highest. Simply because Rheinmetall is making all the key components - ranging from armor panels, coaxial machine gun, main armament, optics, ballistic computer, situational awareness system, acoustic sniper locating system to the smoke grenade launchers. In case the Lynx is not chosen, Rheinmetall should then approach the ADF and offer to integrate its components into the winning design.
  6. Yes, apparently the museum at the Australian army facility at Puckapunyal.
  7. SH_MM

    French flair

    The Brits designed a type of DU armor, where thin depleted uranium plates were used in combation with an interlayer material and probably would have acted as a form of NERA. However the illustration from the French author also makes a lot of sense, because the frontal plate could act as a disruptor, i.e. the high-density in combination with sufficient thickness and hardness might be able to break/shatter incoming penetrators before they hit the NERA, thus enhancing protection performance. APFSDS ammo in general performs worse against unsloped armor, but a slanted plate would increase the probability of penetrator fragments becoming disaligned from the original path of impact. Most likely the straight turret armor face with the DU plate is just a simplification.
  8. SH_MM

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Puma not being offered for LAND 400 is a shame, but not surprising given the requirements and preferences of the Australian army. It seems that the Puma is still in the lead for the Czech IFV project, where it has been announced to be the favored solution. Interesting fact: last month Rheinmetall (and its competitors) presented their IFVs at an expo (scale models, drawing and in case of the CV90 an actual vehicle), but Rheinmetall again showcased the KF31 variant of the Lynx, instead of the Lynx KF41. It seems that this is part of Rheinmetall's marketing strategy, giving the Czech army the choice between a cheap and expensive IFV made by Rheinmetall, rather than two (relatively) expensive IFVs. For Australia, where a manned turret has been declared mandatory and the Boxer CRV already has been purchased, the Lynx KF41 seems to make more sense.
  9. The German army actually had to upgrade some of the garages for the new Puma IFVs, so that they met the safety regulations for storing explosives...
  10. The German military currently has a lot of issues with the reliability of new equipment, maiinly because quality control and supply with new spare parts is sub-optimal. Last year 97 new large combat systems (vehicles and aircrafts) were delivered to the German army, of which only 38 (aka 39%) are combat ready. The largest number of new vehicles is formed by the Puma IFV, of which 71 were delivered in 2017, but only 27 are combat ready. One factor could be that for some weird reason (budget?) spare parts weren't ordered for all components at the same time, so when certain things break, a longer period of time has to be waited. There are also some teething problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore 4 out of 8 A400M transport aircraft and 1 out of 4 Eurofighters delivered in 2017 were only combat ready, although in case of the Eurofighters that is related to an upgrade of the main computer that started shortly after delivery. 14 new helicopters were delivered in 2017 (seven UHT Tigers and seven NH-90s), but only 6 were combat ready (two Tigers and two NH-90s). That's quite a shame. In the current issue of the InfoBrief Heer, there is an article written by the head of marketing of IBD Deisenroth. According to this, IBD has developed a new armor package for the Boxer, which provides the same protection level at 500 kg weight reduction. @2805662, do you know if the Boxer CRV will use this armor kit? Germany hasn't ordered it, but the Dutch army will make use of it. A new armor package from IBD for the Puma has been qualified by the WTD 91, which would provide protection against RPGs and IEDs. It would replace the ERA kit from Dynamit Nobel Defence and stay more than 400 kg below the weight limit (so I guess that means it is lighter than the ERA?) while being cheap enough to fit into the budget of the German army. Given that Germany did order only 200 ERA kits for ~350 Pumas, this might mean that in the future IFVs will make use of IBD's NERA/NxRA instead. Maybe that explains the differences in skirt armor layout between the different prototypes. Furthermore IBD is marketing the IBD Smart ProTech armor, they suggest that it would fit well to the Puma, the Boxer and the Leopard 2, allowing the base armor to be more optimized against KE rounds. For the MGCS, IBD Smart ProTech could be used, but IBD also wants to provide internal armor arrays and external add-on armor modules for the MGCS. The company has designed its own turret and hull concepts optimized for maximum protection.
  11. SH_MM

    The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

    You should look at it relative to its peers; that a newer tank reaches a higher level of protection than an older design is nothing special. IMO one could only say that side armor was prioritized, if more weight was invested into the side armor relative to the frontal armor (meaning the side armor is prioritized over the frontal armor) or greater coverage is demanded: prioritizing would mean to invest more weight into the side armor to either reach a higher protection level (larger frontal arc reaches same protection as the frontal armor) or armor coverage (which one can consider indepedent of timeframe). As we can see by looking at the requirements for the Abrams, it was designed with protection against tank rounds and ATGMs along a 50° arc. 50° is a bit smaller than 60°, which was common on other designs of the time (see German, French & British requirements for their third generation MBTs). If we account for the technology differences, the Stridsvagn 2000 wasn't designed to reach a high level of protection along a greater frontal arc than existing tanks, so side armor wasn't prioritized compared to other tanks. The only reason why one could claim that the Strv 2000 prioritizes side armor compared to the M1 Abrams is the fact that the hull at areas covered by the ballistic skirts is capable to resist certain types of handheld anti-tank weapons (RPG-7, Carl Gustav?) at perpendicular impact angle, but IMO that is only a by-product of the higher protection level required for the frontal arc. It is similar to the Leopard 2A5, where the area covered by ballistic skirts is capable to resist the basic RPG-7 rounds, even though it wasn't nedessarily designed to do so. If you consider that the Stridsvagn 2000 was an unfinished development project and originally meant to enter service around the year 2000, the it would make more sense to compare it to contemporary projects (i.e. the "lost generation" of Cold War prototypes and testbeds made for the 2000s), then the Stridsvagn 2000 doesn't seem to have particular thick side armor/good armor coverage at the hull. The main reason why comparing the M1A2 Abrams' and Stridsvagn 2000's hull armor isn't a good idea, is the lack of upgrades for the (side) hull armor of the former MBT. Based on footage from the production of M1A1s for Egypt and factory footage from the United States, the basic hull armor and side skirts still have the same thickness/layout as used on the original production model of the Abrams in 1980.
  12. New Rheinmetall ADS video. Including tests on Leopard 2, Fuchs, SEP and a mock-up against a (overfly) top-attack threat
×