Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk

  1. Mighty_Zuk

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    Only by 1:55 they started showing actually relevant capabilities. In demonstrations #1 and #2, firing a buttload of rounds, especially when the ammo belly is already quite ridiculously low (180, although hopefully it's only 1 magazine and there are more available rounds inside the vehicle), is stupid when first round hit accuracy is that good. In demonstration #3 it should have been done whilst on the move because the first thing such vehicle's crew should be doing when seeing an MBT or IFV (note the Skyranger has HE-F based rounds, not APFSDS, unless it has some sort of dual feed) is flee for cover. Demonstration #4 was actually much more practical. 2 rounds on a maneuvering drone at good range is what you need. Much more ammo-efficient, much more difficult for enemies to get a location on you, and actually gets the job done without throwing the gun meters off target. Overall, though, I'm not really impressed. The defense sector in the US and Israel (and I assume any country that cooperated) has already demonstrated the feasibility of a 100kW laser atop a reasonably sized platform. Even in adverse weather, such high powered laser should be very capable in the low ranges the Skyranger is expected to operate. Next up is the usage of missiles - nowadays it's an absolute must. Turn it into a proper SHORAD instead of a C-RAM or VSHORAD style weapon system, and it could be made into a single system capable of doing point defense for long range air defenses and the required numbers for the protection of a brigade-sized formation can go down.
  2. I believe it was reported quite a while ago by Rafael officials in 2017's MSPO (September 2017). First report was by Shephard.
  3. Elbit offers a newer variant of its D30-based ATMOS:
  4. Hardly. The APS is the single most cost effective piece of tech on a tank. By a very long shot.
  5. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    Part of the mobile command center, from the video I linked earlier. The Ofek does the data relay job.
  6. You know you can just turn them off, right?
  7. In the next 5 years no. In the next 10? Nobody knows.
  8. Fielding of T-14 is not going to happen soon, and if you survey this forum a bit better you'd know that I'm most vocal here about Russia's MoD's intents to freeze all projects for new platforms (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang). But eventually they will start making them.
  9. The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon. The IDF also seems confident enough with the Iron Fist to have it fully operational on a Merkava tank by 2021. And when I say "by 2021" I mean that by the end of 2021 the first battalion should receive a full shipment of Merkava 4 tanks with the system, after it has been in a state of FRP since at least late 2020, which in terms of military procurement again, is very soon. Next in line are going to be the US who have at least shown intent, and made some progress by pushing forward the MAPS project that will allow easier retrofitting. Then the Aussies will follow suit, and later on the Franco-German alliance will show something. Historically, at least most battles have been very one sided. You''d not want your lighter less capable troops to fight the enemy's best, but you also don't want to fight their best if you can pick off their lighter more vulnerable assets first. This is among the many reasons why distributed firepower is essential. When even support elements are packing serious anti-tank capability, you'd want to have some protection to gain back the confidence.
  10. Not sure HIMARS is something you'd want to give to an unmanned vehicle.
  11. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    The turret is a unique development by the Israeli MoD, thus not offered for export unless SIBAT sees it fit. However selling such turret in a G2G deal is unattractive, especially when the market is so saturated. RAFAEL is marketing a very similar turret named Samson 2, and is currently pushing it in Australia and already selling it in Europe.
  12. Hybrid and high intensity are pretty much the same threat set and require the same preparations in terms of tech. Just a different pace of things. Even the largest and most advanced regular armies cannot deploy MBTs to every combat area, which is why flanking and shit still happens and always will happen, and they have ATGMs distributed across a whole lot of platforms with varying combat capabilities. So even when going against Russia or China or whatever, the top threat is going to be ATGMs. Especially once they go past 2nd gen ATGMs. But it's not going to stay strictly anti-ATGM. By 2021 there will be two serially produced MBTs with APS that can defeat KEPs. By 2025 I assume the number will grow to 3 or 4. By 2030 it will be 5 at least. It's not a marginal upgrade either. An APS is a force multiplier, and if you look at it on the brigade level, or even division level, you got a formation that can stomp any similar sized formation. How does it add to logistics? It's literally the same system, except it's fastened to the hull or turret in a different way. How does it change training? How does it change procurement costs?
  13. Maybe 10 years ago. But right now, they're being pretty open about a focus on warfare against a near peer enemy, which could mean anything from hybrid warfare to high intensity warfare, so MaxxPro MRAP trucks are out, and mechanized units are in. First, and again, logistically there is no drawback in having both a hull mounted and turret mounted APS. Second, the main advantage is you can go hull down and have the turret protected, as your sensors and shooters (radar and interceptor launcher) are within LoS of the threat and not concealed by earth. Another advantage is that you can entirely (if the integration is properly made) avoid additional width or avoid compromising some of the protection, or both.
  14. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    And where does it say specifically that it has the HV version on the turret?
  15. Mighty_Zuk

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    It is in my understanding that SAAB no longer offers the LEDS-150 because their partnership with Denel ended.
  16. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    Yeah, I meant the Eitan and Namer have the same turret, but their Trophy version is not yet fully known. You told MRose that the Trophy Lite (offered for the Stryker) is not the one used on the Namer/Eitan's turret.
  17. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    From an exhibition: Namer: Eitan: Achzarit (aka 'bolt simulator'): Puma: Merkava 4M:
  18. Mighty_Zuk

    Israeli AFVs

    We don't know that one for sure yet. The turret for the Namer and Eitan may well utilize elements from, if not the full Trophy Lite. After all, the whole purpose of Trophy Lite is to fit on a medium turret. The Trophy HV also did not go without changes, and the marketing could definitely shift, by 2020, to the following: Trophy HV - Full spectrum defeat incl. KE. Trophy Lite - Anti-SC.
  19. That one will be difficult to find again, but I'll see what I can do.
  20. It appears that the MCT-30 either cannot accept an APS, or will have a very hard time doing so. BAE is offering its CV90 Mark IV IFV to numerous customers in 2 versions. One version using the MCT-30 turret without an APS, and one with an in-house developed D-series turret with an integrated APS. The main difference, though, is that the MCT is unmanned while the D-series turret is manned. I believe the main issues were that the MCT-30 was too small and had low power output for external systems. This is the same problem the Bradley faces right now (albeit in a different magnitude). If BAE could not integrate the Iron Fist LC, which is tauted as the least power consuming system out there, and definitely the smallest one, on the MCT-30, then it has quite a problem my dude.
  21. But funds for a turret clearly exist. They went with the MCT-30 first, which is fine even though they were already committed to the APS program. Now they spent even more money integrating that same turret on an ACV, which is a bad call IMO. They only have one brigade so far getting that turret. It's still not beyond the point of no return to switch to a more capable one. The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term. EDIT: Come to think of it, it may be best for the US Army to go for just low cost incremental upgrades to the Bradley. As the OMFV gets preferential budgetary treatment, the idea that an AMPV will ever replace a Bradley seems unlikely.
  22. It's probably a stupid question but.... Why not move some of the Bradley's APS funds to fast track the AMPV's own APS, stick a new turret that already has an integrated APS on it, and call it an M2A5?
  23. Mighty_Zuk

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    So that basically nails down the APS contenders to Elbit and Rafael, offering the Iron Fist and Trophy respectively. Farewell ADS...
  24. Mighty_Zuk

    Syrian conflict.

    Also, @LoooSeR I forgot to mention. Hezbollah's name is Hezbollah. Not "Al Muqawama". Muqawama literally means "resistance", which may refer to any terrorist group that sees itself as a resistor to something, thus when you say "Muqawama" you can refer to practically any group that internally uses that name for itself, like Hamas, PIJ, or Fatah, or any of the Syrian terrorist groups for that matter, such as the FSA.