Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mighty_Zuk last won the day on January 9

Mighty_Zuk had the most liked content!

About Mighty_Zuk

Recent Profile Visitors

646 profile views
  1. Israeli AFVs

    Is that better now?
  2. For non English speakers: Krasnopol is better than Excalibur, probably also Smart 155 and TopGun, but it's interesting they chose to refer to accuracy as being 80% accurate, even though that is not a real parameter for accuracy. An Excalibur, for example, against 10x10m targets or larger, will have 100% accuracy, and then the accuracy reduces exponentially as the target size reduces. Even for slower, heavier, and theoretically more accurate munitions, that's the peak accuracy the manufacturers are willing to guarantee.
  3. General AFV Thread

    http://www.janes.com/article/78099/challenger-2-mbt-lep-selection-draws-closer They want to choose a winner before demonstrations? That's bold. But mid-2019 is kinda late.
  4. Israeli AFVs

    Yep, it's Trophy alright. Looking good! Note: The smoke grenade launcher was removed and the gap that was usually taken by it was filled with armor. Notice the gap: Shame they didn't take the opportunity to make a more serious overhaul. The Mark 3 could probably use a little rearrangement in its frontal section, some weight reduction wherever possible, and an improved frontal armor on the hull. I know it's more needed on the sides, but it can't be very economical to have the engine frequently damaged.
  5. Israeli AFVs

    Some Mark 3D tanks in the Golan. But something interesting caught my eye, can't quite figure it out: The tank on the very right sports the new panoramic sight, but also a strange object on its turret cheek. Some speculated it to be Trophy, but it's just nearly impossible to tell with that image quality. Can anyone with a good set of eyes try to identify it? Just a note: The project to modernize a single active brigade of Mark 3 tanks with Trophy (among other things) was already funded, but no schedule was given other than a completion date of 2027 for a total of 1000 systems.
  6. Syrian conflict.

    Okay. The map has in small letters a description that says the squares are permanent presence.
  7. Syrian conflict.

    Wasn't Abu Kamal just recently captured (november)? That seeems like hardly enough time to establish permanent presence.
  8. Syrian conflict.

    If shit goes down, there's at least a nice list of targets to monitor:
  9. Where did you get that? I've seen that one years ago in a promotional video of Elbit, but the high quality picture indicates this is a new photo. What's more interesting is that Elbit stopped marketing this turret when the UT30 Mk 2 came out.
  10. Okay so about the Brad; What I've heard so far is that its current turret is incompatible with the Iron Fist (Let's just call it IF-LC from now on), so they're using an M2A4's turret. What this means? I don't know. Maybe the turret itself consumes less electricity, or maybe it has an improved capacity for electrical appliances. The electricity rant is more directed at the whole Brad, not the turret. That doesn't matter. What matters is that they have this new turret with new features, and somewhere down the pipe they have an A5 turret with a new gun and new stuff. And it's still cramped as hell. They say they only have money to upgrade a turret and not the hull, which is fine. But why not take the opportunity and think of something more long term? If they want to change the gun, sensors, and move a few things around, why not take a different MOTS turret, add their stuff, like the IF-LC, gun and whatnot, and at the same time even get rid of a whole bunch of problems. Maybe even change the medium term strategy for an APS. What I'm proposing is to dump the A5 turret outright. BAE offered the Czech 2 variants of the CV90 Mk4 with 2 different turrets. One of them would be perfect for the Bradley: It's a technologically mature product that could be fitted with domestic sensors and electronics. Or if they want to go for a unitary APS for the whole army, they could go for something like this: It's developmental, but it's already being tested on a number of platforms for the past few months. The up-side is that they can just forget about the turret for a long while after that. They could even increase the troop capacity along the way by using an unmanned turret. The Abrams' ECP is the least problematic of the bunch. I have only few complaints: 1)Want a better engine? Great. Why not invest in hybrid propulsion even at the risk of slightly delaying the process? An engine procurement is a long term commitment. Especially on MBTs. I'm afraid they would barely hit their midlife point by the time some will already have made the switch. Other than pollution and fuel consumption, I could think of a few advantages such an engine might have. A tank could have a sort of a stealth mode while on the move. It was common to stop the tank, turn off the engine and turn on the APU, and stay cold and hard to detect for heat sensors. With hybrid propulsion you can still do that for a certain while, while moving. And at higher speed. 2)Focus on incremental upgrades to existing components, rather than seeking new capabilities. An APS is a new capability. Good for them to finally accelerate this, by the way. A see-through-armor technology is a new capability. The UGV operation thing from an MBT, that's one heck of a new capability. An improved thermal sight is not a new capability. Don't get me wrong, electronics need frequent upgrades, even without considering their natural degradation. But other than APS, everything I mentioned is either being done too slowly, or not at all. And even the APS program (and I apologize Captain America for my language) seems to me a little half assed. They took the effort to give 2 divisions worth of tanks an APS and went for the most basic version of Trophy? In 2 years from now, the Barak MBT should be operational with a new generation of the Trophy. That means, it should finish a very long and rigorous series of testing by then. That is, if they intend to keep their promise to make a new generation of APS. Why not get to an agreement with the IDF and RAFAEL to export all tests of the system, or replicate them, inside the US? What they are talking about right now is almost 4 years worth of production starting from the moment the Trophy starts being mass produced. That's 2 years of making an older generation system when a new much more capable one is both produced and rigorously tested. What makes this important for me is the fact that the US prepares for a peer enemy, which means tank vs tank battles are still very much on the table. So that new generation of APS is going to make a difference. The T-14 is a generational leap over whatever Russia made beforehand. It's a generational leap over much of what the west has produced so far as well. And the Abrams' ECP program hasn't really changed since then. It's still very slow to add new capabilities considering the timeline for the NGCV is to produce a fully functional MBT within 17(!) years from now, whereas Russia is this close to finishing state trials on the Armata <---------->. That's short. And onto the Stryker - Well that one is the most mysterious to me. The Iron Curtain APS is massive, and weighs more than any other contender, at about 2 tons if I remember correctly. Choosing any of the above mentioned turrets would strike 2 birds with 1 stone - modern, well armed turret, and a light APS that also matches that of another vehicle. It just seems to me that whoever is responsible for the APS program could quite easily just settle for 1 unitary APS for the whole fleet AND get other rather urgent issues fixed at the same time, but chose not to. Okay, that was a serious rant. I'm gonna go chew a rock to feel manly. Being Loosered is timeless.
  11. And they still want to go for a mere upgrade of the turret instead of a complete redesign that is long overdue. Because when even the smallest, lightest, and least power consuming APS is at a point where it overburdens the turret and electrical grid, you know it's bad. Now they wanna add a 30mm gun in the same turret even though they tested proper, new turrets on the Brad, and there are now turrets available as MOTS products with integrated APS. Kudos on pushing through a hastened NGCV process but I can't help but think how fucked up the current ECPs are on the 3 core platforms - Abrams, Brad, and Stryker.
  12. General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

    Delivery is only by 2020, with follow-on ships delivered til 2022 I believe. So there's still a small chance it'll be stolen from a German shipyard.
  13. General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

    https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/february-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5947-tkms-cut-1st-steel-of-first-israeli-navy-saar-6-corvette.html Sa'ar 6 corvette keeping the Sa'ar tradition by keeping everything small, tight, and armed to the teeth.
  14. StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    Well the only thing they're doing in practice is just relocate the manpower to maintenance units. But I guess on second thought, men who specialize in maintaining the vehicle will do so more efficiently, thus leading to another source of manpower saving.
  15. I just realized why there are delays in the test series (operational capability in 2020 instead of 2019). In the video they said they tested a Koalitsiya for hermetic sealing but they were showering the Msta.