Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
US Army needs another year to pick an APS for the Stryker.
The two runners are Rafael's Trophy VPS, and Rheinmetall's StrikeShield, formerly known as ADS.
Both demonstrated their capabilities in the rodeo, and now what's left is to integrate them on the Stryker for continued demonstrations.
However, neither system appears to be disqualified just yet. The author reiterates they want to test both systems more in depth, but hints again at the budgetary issues behind the decision, and that the army could be forced to make a selection at the demonstration phase.
-
32 minutes ago, heretic88 said:
Thats not what I believe, it is a fact. UVZ confirmed it. Look for it on Gurkhan's blog.
Edit: meanwhile I found it:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_0.html
Also the 125mm gun is indeed inadequate:
Read past the title then. UVZ's statement, which GurKhan, says that they are ready to test the 152mm gun, if the Russian MoD requests so, and if the funding is provided. They don't talk about any technical difficulties, and this comes in contrast to what many people said about the 152mm being either in production or being tested somewhere.
In the 2nd article he cites the armor improvement in the Abrams. That's hardly relevant when talking about the capability of the 125mm gun as a whole. Ammunition improvements are made, and other possible venues of improvement are increased chamber volume, longer shells with either larger penetrators or more propellant, for example.
Perhaps improvements in ammunition will reach a dead end soon, and minor improvements to the gun as well. But in that case, going to 152mm straight away is very extreme. Rheinmetall claims an increase in 50% energy output with just a 10mm diameter increase, with the main improvement done being in the round's length.
It's important to remember that due to physical limitations, and the greater ease of creating destructive ammo than capable armor, no armor array is made to outright defeat the latest and greatest ammo at point blank. It's made to limit as much as possible the engagement envelope of the enemy, and to reduce the range at which the enemy can engage you. But that one, you understand well.
-
11 minutes ago, heretic88 said:
There was a better option. Start mass producing Objekt-195. It was ready. It had the 152mm gun, 30mm coax, and better protection. Back then they said it is too expensive... But in my opinion, its total BS. Actually, it was indeed expensive, but developing a new tank (that is inferior) from zero cost far, far more. Add the fact that the 125mm gun is now inadequate, and the T-14 is incapable to receive the 152mm gun without a massive redesign... Compared to all of this, the 195 is cheap... Unfortunately, the 195 is a missed chance, all we can hope for is that we will see it some day in a museum.
In my opinion, the Kurganets is also a waste of money. It has zero advantages compared to the cheaper BMP-3 Dragun. Only the Koalitsiya and the Bumerang make sense amongst these development programmes.
The T-14 is a combination of many designs, including, perhaps primarily, the Object-195.
The 125mm is not inadequate, but the 152mm is hardly practical.
Without doubt, the main challenge today for an MBT's suit of armament, is dealing with an APS. The 152mm actually performs worse than the 125mm against APS, and substantially reduces the Armata's capability in both static and mobile defense, as well as ambush scenarios.
If you believe the T-14 needs a massive redesign to fit the 152mm gun, then the BMP-3 Dragun needs an even more massive redesign to become an adequate IFV from the baseline BMP-3.
The Kurganets-25 was built from the ground up to be a proper medium weight amphibious IFV, ditching the ancient Soviet meat-grinder philosophy, and onto a more modern approach of conservation.
Those who claim the Kurganets is somehow problematic because it's too big compared with the BMP-3, i.e it's problematic because soldiers can actually sit upright and NOT break their backs, or sit in awkward, semi-kama sutra positions, are unnamed, but are likely the very same type of lobbyists that got the Soviet Union to buy 3 different MBTs in parallel. Probably just a bunch of UVZ salesmen.
-
5 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:
UK is considering a new SPG:
https://www.janes.com/article/87623/uk-releases-rfi-for-new-self-propelled-howitzer'
Boxer with Donar turret, maybe?
Maybe, but unlikely. Rheinmetall has pushed this concept for a while, but there are other options as well. For example, a Caesar or ATMOS on a MAN HX truck. I also heard a version of the Archer was offered, although I am not particularly fond of the Archer concept to say the least, as I believe a manual backup is a crucial aspect.
The AGM is also an option, and here I would like to mention that it's called AGM, not Donar. The Donar is a version mounted on a Bradley platform.
There are 2 main reasons why the option of a Boxer-mounted AGM are less likely:
- The real power holder in the UK is Rheinmetall. The AGM is a KMW product. What it stood to profit from the Boxer+AGM idea is an additional sale of boxer drive modules. It could profit just as much from any of the other abovementioned options.
- A truck-based solution, for example the MAN HX, allows for more optimized pressure distribution, and provides more flexibility to install various platform stabilizers. They're also not limited in payload, when compared with a Boxer. They have a few turreted, and a few un-turreted options, for example the Caesar or Brutus not using a turret, or the ATMOS, Archer, and AGM using a turret, with the ATMOS being offered in both configurations actually.
-
1 hour ago, AC GiantDad said:
You know, at this point, I've become convinced what the russians should have done is just taken the Object 187 hull and mated it with the Black Eagle turret or something. The Armata has been a comedy of errors, almost like a symbol of the government that spawned it really
There is nothing wrong with the Armata on the grand scale. Its APS might not be the best type of layout, but overall it's a solid design. The biggest issue with it is the program management, which is piss poor at this point, because the army is focused on investing substantially more funds into upgrading tanks that should become obsolete soon. And the deeper the upgrade, the more it costs.
-
-
That's 400 shekels. Basically a parking ticket.
-
12 minutes ago, VPZ said:
Damn, how many topics related to Soviet/Russian tanks are on this forum? Just don't create them.
Russia, and formerly the Soviet Union, have a rich history of AFV-making, even if it was at times non-sensical. Only one or two threads won't do it justice.
-
2 hours ago, Karamazov said:
Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality.
Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.
Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.
-
8 hours ago, SPARTAN ARMED said:
-DEBKA CRAP- it seem that idf didnt want to fight avi kochavi is just an office general and they just shooting to baloons and empty warehouses so no real battles for the idf units just virtual reality for now.
This is not the place for this. This is an AFV-only thread.
-
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:
A simpler explanation for Poland is that ABM is a higher immediate priority.
PAC-2 and PAC-3 do not share a kinetic envelope, hence PAC-2's ability to be multipurpose in comparison. This is not a negative for PAC-3, it means there are things each missile is better at than the other.
The IDF does not need PAC-3 because it has Arrow 2. If Stunner was a replacement for PAC-3, the IDF wouldn't need it as well for the same reason. Arrow 3, like THAAD, is on another tier.
Arrow 2 is also not comparable with the PAC-3. It's an exo-atmospheric capable missile. It just complements the Arrow 3 because it has a dual capability in defeating threats in the endo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric region, while the Arrow 3 can only intercept in the exo-atmospheric region.
Again, the Stunner was also developed first and foremost for the ABM role. An officially stated range of 160km, albeit not repeated claim, puts it in the same category as PAC-2 in terms of range, but due to its higher speed it expands its potential target list.
-
1 hour ago, SPARTAN ARMED said:
We're seeing here at least 2 infantry brigades and at least one armored brigade, both active. We can expect at least 2 more reserve brigades activated for this purpose.
There are talks of restored calm until the border riots return, but this is still the highest alert the IDF has been on the Gaza border since 2014.
-
21 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
PAC-2GEM and PAC-3MSE do not share an engagement envelope.
PAC-3 is not a replacement for PAC-2. Raytheon is still upgrading PAC-2 instead of focusing on PAC-3.
Stunner is not capable of directly replacing PAC-3, there is a reason why Poland is buying both PAC-3MSE and Stunner.
Raytheon never really gave any specifics on the engagement envelope of the MSE. Instead all we got, basically, is that it's far better optimized from the beginning to do the ABM role, while the GEM got it through a software upgrade.
Why Poland got the MSE as well was also not said anywhere. And it is possible to assume different very realistic scenarios.
For example, the MSE being the more produced missile, is more reliant on export, and its higher price will obviously increase Raytheon's profit.
Since other contenders have used the MSE, particularly, the MEADS which was the next top contender, Poland could not have protested a push for an MSE buy very hard.
PAC-3 may not necessarily be a replacement, but if that was the case, it's not a good talking point for the MSE. You want missiles to be more multirole within a certain kinetic envelope.
Upgrading the PAC-2 also makes sense even if it was possible to fully replace it with PAC-3. Many customers are still using the PAC-2 and may not be too eager to replace it just yet.
The IDF does not need the PAC-3 because of the David's Sling which together with Arrow 2 and 3 provides complete protection against all levels of ballistic missiles.
But it still uses the PAC-2 and it will probably stay for quite a while, until it becomes too old, just like it did with the Hawks that only retired a couple years ago.
-
4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
The IDF only uses PAC-2 GEM though, not PAC-3/PAC-3MSE.
Similar envelope missiles (MSE other than introducing hit to kill to the family focuses on size reduction instead of reusing the existing size to increase the envelope), and that's part of the reason why the IDF never bought the PAC-3MSE. Already had a program of its own. Plus the MSE is ridiculously expensive.
-
7 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
Which report suggests Stunner is mach 5+ during terminal?
Also yes that Raytheon graphic lists Patriot missiles together, that doesn't mean Skyceptor, PAC-2GEM, PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE all share an engagement envelope.
Seems that now the english version of Wikipedia has deleted the figure altogether, and the hebrew version deleted the source only. Other searches yield no results other than many articles that already took the mach 7.5 speed as a reality, even though within the atmosphere it's not very likely.
I'm glad they deleted it. It was always an unverified claim. Still, much like the Iron Dome it seems the designers put quite a lot of effort in making it as fast as possible.
All these missiles, the Stunner, PAC-2 and PAC-3MSE, are listed as missiles capable of intercepting threats up to medium range ballistic missiles, and as low as cruise missiles. Seems to me like they're built for the same envelope.
Also, don't forget that the Stunner is built as a complete replacement to the Patriot in IDF service, and at some point was offered to the US as a PAC-4 system, so it's counter-intuitive to assume they have different envelopes when they're seen as direct counterparts by the industry.
-
1 hour ago, Adraste said:
AFAIK during the Hermon missile attack, the Iranian guided-ballistic rockets were specifically targeting the military and civilian sites. There was no overfly per-se, the iranian rockets were in their final descending phase of the ballistic path when the Tamir missiles were launched to intercept them. There was an intelligence warning that the IRGC intended to attack the Hermon so an Iron Dome battery was positioned just next to the ski ressort beforehand.
I am not an expert in rocket science but the heavy caliber medium range rocket like the M-302 in Gaza should be able to reach an apogee of much more than 10 km altitude, probably between 30 and 50 km when launched at their maximum range of 150km.
Even if the Iron Dome can reach an altitude of 10km, intercepting medium and long range rockets would be only possible when the threats are themself in their terminal phase of flight.
Thus having the Gaza strip surrounded by Iron Dome batteries would not necessary protect the center of Israel against Hamas long-range rockets like the M-302. A faster and longer-range interceptor like the Stunner could be used not only to intercept the M-302 during its terminal phase over Tel-Aviv but also during M-302's ascending and apogee phase before and during mid-flight.
The media report at the time, which was not yet disputed, said the rocket was aimed at central Israel. Not at the Hermon.
The Iron Dome has the opportunity to intercept the missiles at least at the first stage of flight, although it was said they intercepted the missiles over Tel Aviv in 2014 at about the middle of their flight.
It seems the IDF is fairly confident in the Iron Dome's capability to defeat these rockets. I'll leave it to them to decide.
-
52 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
Besides making a deduction of kinetic ability from the available information on the missiles, Raytheon is pretty upfront about their engagement envelopes.
Rafael has not released any information about the kinetic ability of the Stunner other than it having a 3-pulse engine, including a rocket booster, and the ability to engage cruise missiles, aircraft, and short to medium range ballistic missiles.
No range nor speed were mentioned, although it is widely believed to reach hypersonic speeds at its final stage of flight, based on a report that cannot yet be verified.
Raytheon, probably by the request of the Israeli gov't, also does not release such information.
I assume you looked at the graph in page 3.
If you look again, you'll see they mention the Stunner under 2 different names - David's Sling as a lower tier system, and then the Skyceptor as a missile on the same kinetic tier as the PAC-2 and PAC-3MSE.
David's Sling's classification as a lower tier system is probably a matter of graphical design. It uses the EL/M-2084 radar with a 500km air search range, but is supplemented by the Green Pine and Super Green Pine radars of the Arrow systems, and is connected to the higher tiers via a single network, and has access to radars on the national level, making it effectively a matter of deploying arrays of interceptors around.
I assume that in any form of deployment, the Skyceptor, much like the Patriot, is supposed to be connected to higher tier radars as well. The missile remains the same in every way.
-
33 minutes ago, Lord_James said:
I thought ATMOS was the name of the truck, too.
Sorry if this question is getting annoying, but ATMOS is the computer and sensors /systems attached to the computer? Could you link something that says that explicitly (again, sorry if this is annoying, I’m just trying to understand).
Here's the PDF from Elbit: https://elbitsystems.com/media/ATMOS-1.pdf
I'll quote the important bits:
QuoteHighly adaptable, the modular ATMOS system is compatible with any 6x6 or 8x8 high-mobility tactical truck.
So it's independent of the truck type. Not too long ago, Elbit also said the turret for the system is completely platform-agnostic, but they don't develop a platform of their own so they offer truck-based solutions to export customers.
QuotePart of Elbit Systems' line of fully integrated, modular artillery solutions, ATMOS incorporates an embedded electronic suite, automatic laying system, and automatic loading system. The advanced electronic suite effectively enables accurate navigation and autonomous operation, reduced crew size, increased firepower and high precision accuracy.
So they describe ATMOS as the combination of an embedded electronic suite, automatic laying system, and an automatic loading system.
-
2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:
Stunner is not as capable as PAC-3 at ABM.
Was there ever a proper comparison of the two?
I assume that would be because the radar on the Stunner is probably made cheaper, but its prime intended purpose is ABM after all.
-
13 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
I really have no idea why they aren't going for a Stunner missile for the Patriot system, which is supposed to be integrated with it for the Polish contract, or reviving their development of past multi-sensor AAMs/SAMs.
It just offers an exceptional level of redundancy against different countermeasures, and could remove the need to maintain PAC-2 and PAC-3MSE missiles at the same time.
Instead, what we're seeing is a decade long roadmap that does not give any focus to R&D.
Their buy of Iron Dome is good. They could do even better with a more mobile version.
The IBCS effort is great. Even the low tier air defenses need such a network.
THAAD and GMD are doing amazing with their track record of successful experiments.
M-SHORAD though? Seems half assed. Weak and inaccurate cannon that could only be effective at very low ranges. Relatively slow missiles whose only advantage is ability to draw from massive stocks (provided they dont buy new units of Hellfire). Stingers are good though.
Laser based low cost air defense? No mention whatsoever. Speaking of which, the IDF's own laser based air defense was supposed to enter service when exactly? 2015? Nothing about it for years now, except maybe that IAI are now testing their own system with no further details. We know US companies have demonstrated capacity to fire lasers close to 100kW.
-
2 hours ago, VPZ said:
Because it's automatic systems. It is said that it will choose shells and charges automatically, at least.
Choosing shells and charges is a very simple matter. The heart of the system is all the components and algorithms that allow it to achieve maximum accuracy in its ballistic computations, and its ability to link up with guided munitions and integrate with new types of shells.
The system that chooses the shell type and charge, is just one of the outputs of the ballistic calculation. The data on shells' range and charges' power is set, and the FCS determines all the options that are available to it to realize the ballistic calculation. If multiple choices are available, it organizes them to achieve MRSI.
But MRSI has already been a capability of the ATMOS for a very long time. It has basically already made all these calculations, just for manual loading.
So 90% of this auxiliary system and its algorithms, already existed in the ATMOS's computers.
2 hours ago, VPZ said:Yes, and the new howitzer will differ from cannon on a truck.
It was only a cannon on a truck for the customers who chose this configuration. The options of manual, semi-automatic, or fully automatic loading were always available.
-
18 minutes ago, VPZ said:
Electronic architecture of new howitzer must be changed.
In what way? And why?
18 minutes ago, VPZ said:Atmos has similarities with M-71. IMO, it's based on M-71.
Except the ATMOS is using an L/52 gun, not an L/39. The M-71 is L/39. And the entire system is a sum of more than just the cannon.
-
12 minutes ago, VPZ said:
Actually, there is a big difference between manually operated cannon on a truck and unmanned turret.
There is a big difference in terms of capability. But a relatively small difference in the engineering aspect. The electronic architecture is always the most difficult part of an AFV to create, if you're making an AFV from scratch.
As the ATMOS is basically the electronic architecture, and the sum of Elbit's products in sensory, data management, communications, and control, and its concept remains, they're allowed to call it the ATMOS even if they changed the cannon or loading system.
12 minutes ago, VPZ said:Then, there is no big difference between Atmos and M-71 - just some "minor additions".
The M-71 never used any component of the ATMOS.
-
1 hour ago, VPZ said:
I mean turret and autoloader.
The turret and autoloader are not "different" because they haven't existed on previous versions.
The original ATMOS used a loading assistance device that could hold 3 projectiles in place, and required manual loading of the propellant charge.
Loading the charge and primer automatically does not make this an entirely new system. It's a rather minor addition when you look at the whole system.
GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
Against APS, at least those that are capable of defeating APFSDS, increasing the mass or size of the rod does not add any significant improvement to the capability to overcome the interceptor's force. It's just going to be a far too negligible addition.
However, any increase in diameter does necessitate a reduction in ammunition load, unless there is extra volume to spare. A reduced ammo load would be a significant enough reduction in capability, depending on how many shells have to be removed, because APS would require an attacker to use multiple shells per target prior to the first penetration.
Assault? Perhaps. But in defensive tactics, a tank would hop between prepared positions, or improvised hull-down positions. The larger the turret, the more vulnerable the tank gets.
That's basically one of the T-14's trump cards, and why its turret is basically un-armored. Its actual turret (not gadgets sticking on the outside) is so narrow that it's basically like a mantlet, and mantlets are fairly hard to properly armor.
Object 195's turret is about as little armored as the T-14's turret, but it went from being the smallest turret (T-14), to by a large margin the biggest one (Obj 195).