Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    1,109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. It is a more controversial article. While ESuT publishes some very interesting and well written articles, sometimes they also rely on less accurate sources and rumors. E.g. the unit that supposedly complained about the lackluster reliability of the Puma doesn't actually operate it yet... The Marder lifetime extension has been approved and - after new engines already have been ordered - the Bundestag approved the purchase and installation of new ATTICA-GM thermal imagers this week. While I personally wouldn't dislike a two systems solutions, the CV90 seems to be rather unsuited for the German Army based on several factors (it would hardly solve any of the Puma's real problems like the reduced carry capacity and restricted interior height and in ~2002 it was deemed impossible to modify the ASCOD's and CV90's designs in such a way that they could meet the protection criteria, which lead to the creation of the Puma IFV), but only act as an expensive shortcut to negate some of the teething problems. A new firmware is already being rolled out which is supposed to eliminate/limit the software issues. The idea that the CV90 would be favored in Germany falls into the same category as ESuT announcing that the Wiesel 1 might be fitted with a 27 mm revolver gun or that LANCE turret already had been selected for the heavy fire support variant of the Boxer - i.e. they are just speculations and indiviual opinions.
  2. Is it true that only 40 turreted modules for the Boxer CRV will be purchased? Nevermind, that claim was based on old news regarding SPIKE-LR launchers.
  3. The photos show two damaged Piranhas - one hit by an IED and one that apparently burnt (after hit by an IED or something else...). The armor is made by TenCate and follows the standard layout for lightweight bolt-on ceramic armor: ballistic cover, ceramic tiles, backing made of kevlar or other polyaramides. The small tiles are also visible on the second vehicle, but only at a few places next to the bolts. The armor panels/ceramic tiles were most likely removed after damage, .
  4. Mr. Hawkes was talking to Rheinmetall personnel specifically regarding the Challenger 2 LEP offer with 120 mm L/55A1 smoothbore gun: "following introduction of the L55A1 in notional CR2 LEP is going to reduce round count from 49 to 31". In Rheinmetall's video footage, one can already see that the turret only provides space for rounds of 16 main gun ammo.
  5. Algeria is not buying AFVs from Germany, but factories and licenses. The Fuchs 2 is made by a company owned by the Algerian MoD, Rheinmetall Algeria holds only 5% of the shares of the production company.
  6. These are screenshots from a South-Korean video. For turret integration the hull was shipped to Israel.
  7. Supposedly Challenger 2 LEP will only have stowage for 31 rounds of main gun ammo:
  8. The claimed range seems questionable. While IAI states this range on its website, it doesn't distinguish between air-launched and ground-launched ranges. Wikipedia took its infromation from an old Defense-Update.com article, which weren't the most reliable When Rheinmetall offered the integration of LAHAT into the Leopard 2 MBT, the maximum range was stated as about 6 kilometers. First of all, LAHAT can still be detected by all kinds of sensors - optical/IR/UV sensors, radars, etc. LAHAT needs the target to be illumanted in order to be a laser homing missile. Firing the missile, then hoping the tank remains in place/at a position that a last second laser illumination will allow it to hit the target is not a realistic scenario. John Cockerill and Luch of Ukraine also have developed the laser beam-riding Falarick ATGM in the calibers 90, 105 and 120 mm. The 120 mm Falarick has a range of 5,000 meters, but with just 630 mm penetration against steel armor protected by ERA, it has more of a multi-purpose warhead than an anti-tank one. There is also Luch's Konus ATGM for the T-72-120 and T-84-120 Yatagan, from which the Falarick was derived. It has a slightly more powerful warhead (minimum penetration of 700 mm steel after ERA), but that still falls short by quite a bit from being a threat to the T-14 Armata tank.
  9. LAHAT is also a laser-homing missile, so it is not really suited for use against modern tanks with laser warning systems. Aside of that, the system isn't being used on tanks anymore.
  10. From Jane's Armoured Fighting Vehicle Retrofit Systems 1993-1994 available on Archive.org. There are tons of descriptions of various FCS, but none of them really goes into detail.
  11. The AN/VSG-2 thermal imager of the M60A3 TTS. Just 2.6x and 8x magnifcation. The Thermal Imagining Sight of the M1 Abrams' gunner offers 3x and 10x magnification. The WBG-X thermal imager used in the Leopard 2's EMES 15 gunner's sight provides options for 4x and 12x magnification. TOGS (II) also offers 4x and 11.5x magnification. All these devices are based on the same 120 line variant of the Texas Instruments (US) Common Modules first generation thermal imaging array. In case of the M60A3 TTS, the recognition range (NATO vehicle target) was limited to 2,300 meters.
  12. I annex this old topic as the optics and FCS resource topic. Discussions welcome. Relevant other topics: Relevant old posts: Basic thermal imager talk: German night sights for the Leopard 2 PT: M60A2 gunnery instructions, including description of several FCS functions. Article about the FCS from COBELDA. The article uses this as the name for the FCS, but it actually stands for Compagnie Belge d'Électronique et d'Automation, a joint-venture between SABCA (Société Anonyme Belge de Constructions Aéronautiques) and Hughes: This is the "SABCA FCS" used on Australian, late Belgian and early Canadian Leopard 1 tanks. Regarding M60A3 and M1 Abrams: This seems a bit odd for the following reason: The M21 ballistic computer used as part of the M60A3's fire control system only took a limited amount of into account, such as ammunition type, cant, parallax, pressure, wind and range data. The XM1's digital computer took into account the same factors: Apparently both solutions required manual input for most factors, in case of the M60A3 wind and pressure needed to be entered manually just as well as range data in case of the laser rangefinder picking up multiple echoes (which due to the older laser rangefinder could happen somewhat often, requiring the commander to pick a reading). Then again the M1's FCS required an "extensive series of pre-operational computer programming steps": Based on the Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik, the the FLER-H ballistic computer used on the early Leopard 2 prototypes (and in a somewhat modified form on the Leopard 1A4 and TAM tanks) was able to automatically retrieve data for air pressure, cant, exterior temperature, parallax, propellant temperature, tilt, wind and other factors, resulting in the need to only enter range data manually (as the laser rangefinder's readings was to be checked by the gunner with his optical rangefinder).
  13. Not so contemporary, but historically relevant. Regarding the tripartite gun trials from 1976:
  14. This is the version of the Leopard 2A7+ purchased by Qatar, i.e. the Leopard 2A7Q (aka Leopard 2A7 QAT). No idea if this is really identical to the variant ordered by Hungary, but compared to the German Leopard 2A7(V), it has the full armor kit (including additional roof protection), the PERI RTWL-B from the Puma in place of the PERI R17A3, a third generation thermal imager and improved LRF for the gunner's EMES 15 sight, cross wind sesnor and the FLW-200 RWS on top of the turret. It is basically KMW's late Leopard 2A7+ demonstrator with minimum changes. Qatar purchased the best possible configuration, while Germany initially didn't want to spend as much money, only to implement some of the lacking features in the Leopard 2A7V (and possibly in the follow-up variant, because both a LRF for the commander and a RWS are still on the Bundeswehr's tank crews' wish lists...). I don't think the L/55A1 tank gun variant was available at the time of the Qatari purchase, but this is just my speculation.
  15. The DTR article goes a bit more into detail, though I am still quite a bit sceptical. The fact that it is lighter seems mostly related to the fact that it is not armored? The amount of armor required to cover the same box-shaped volume will be the same. The only thing that has changed is where the box-shaped volume is located inside or outside the turret in "a void inside the Lance turret envelope" on the starboard side. As far as I know, this void currently does not exist - at least not with sufficient volume to mount RAMP within the LANCE 1.0 turret. The hazard of tree strikes is an odd one. Seems like this never was a problem with IFVs. In case of the Puma IFV, the launcher does not extend over the hull sides, so at most turret rotation there isn't really the possibility of a "tree strike". In case of LANCE 1.0, Rheinmetall also designed a dual missile launcher with vertical arrangement rather than horizontal, which has been showcased on the Lynx KF31 demonstrator. While this won't completely prevent the likelihood of tree strikes, it would reduce it. Btw. MELLS is the designation for Spike-LR, not a designation for the launcher. The Puma and Boxer CRV use different launchers; the latter's is a variant of the former's, but they are not identical. Armor protection is one major difference, but not the only one. I don't think that the information released by Defence Technology Review magazine (both in their current issue and on Twitter), actually supports your statements. While DTR writes that the operational temperature range for the RAMP is -40°C to +80°C, no comparison to the earlier launcher is made. My understanding is that the Spike-LR (II) missile would be the limiting factor. Likewise it is stated that the Supacat RAMP is dampened, but it is not mentioned in the article nor in Twitter that it is dampened to a higher degree than the previous options (and that any dampening beyond the one offered on the existing launcher would actually make a difference). However the weight difference, reduced overall volume and reduced tree are mentioned. Last but not least: in the article DTR specifically mentions that RAMP is to be added to the KF41 Lynx, but the previous comparison is related to the launcher used on the Boxer CRV demonstrator. On Twitter it is stated that RAMP (might/will) be mounted on the Boxer CRV aswell, but I am highly sceptical of that statement. I am 90% sure that the Boxer CRV will enter production with the LANCE 1.0 turret, rather than the newer LANCE 2.0 design. This is based on the fact that according to in 2019 Rheinmetall was in the process of implementing some changes to the LANCE 1.0 turret based on Australian requests and one the fact that the Bundeswehr announced that it will cooperate with Australia to speed up its procurement process of the heavy weapons carrier (Boxer with LANCE 1.0).
  16. We have to wait until the industry proves that it can bring Puma's readiness rate up to 50% this year. But why? Aside of putting something Australian into these vehicles - to please some Australian politicians - there is little sense in integrating RAMP into LANCE 2.0. It only bulks up the turret while providing no real advantage (protection, signature management, capacity) over the modular mission pods already part of LANCE 2.0.
×
×
  • Create New...