Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
It also doesn't mention that it's not current day prices, but prices taken out of any random phase of production. I remember about a decade ago people would actually say the Leclerc is so fancy because it's so expensive, and then the K2 is so fancy because it's so expensive, citing figures of $8 million to $14 million, not knowing those are figures for early tranches, with a lot of the development costs built in. Type 99 also seems somewhat misplaced - not too long ago we've heard China prefers now to rely more on Type 96 tanks because the Type 99 are too expensive to produce in such quantities. For an economy like China, making thousands of tanks worth $2.6 million each sounds dirt cheap. The figure for the Merkava 4 is definitely wrong. In 2010 in Eurosatory, SIBAT officials (defense export agency for the IDF) said the price of a single tank is $4.5 million, for export. The unit price for export will always be greater than what the IDF pays to procure it. The topic has been only raised few times since then, but it always concluded in a "we don't know". The IDF buys parts for the tanks in bulk. And by 'bulk' I mean they always stock up on enough parts to keep production going for several years even if there's a complete supply chain shutdown. A lot of the procurement is completely independent of the desired amount of tanks, because the production goes on indefinitely. It's almost impossible to assess the true cost of a single unit. Of course, the IDF does not buy the tank as a complete system from a private company, but the tank is for the most part privatized, and the IDF even pays premium, and prioritizes contracts, for companies in suburban areas. There are also typos in the headline, and it appears the K2 image is this nice but ultimately failed attempt at a computerized model (main issue is the hull front shape):
-
That's still too much for $1 million. I think this is just one part of a longer contract, to supply 3,500 missiles over an undefined amount of time, with $1 million being allocated to the manufacturer for the course of one year.
-
$955,431 does not sound like something that would buy you 35,000 missiles. In western figures, that's between 10 to 20 missiles depending on type.
-
The idea is to retrofit the system to reservists tanks, which includes the Mark 3, and I assume also means Mark 4A/B.
-
I don't see how the switch to the MT883 engine on the Namer affects that decision. The rationale was very simple - keep a brigade of older Merkavas in active service so its servicemen will have a smooth transition to the reserves later on, because going from a Mark 4 to a Mark 2 can be a huge shock. It has more to do with the fact that the Barak tank will start entering service in parallel with the decommissioning of the Mark 2. The first battalion of Barak will enter service when the first battalion of Merkava 2 leaves its last brigade, and the last Barak battalion in the 188th will enter service when the Merkava 2 is completely out of service. Seeing as the IDF is now investing in BMS for some of its Merkava 3 tanks, as well as putting active protection for at least a brigade, the switch from a Mark 4 to a Mark 3 will be smoother. And those who will serve on the Barak will switch to the Mark 4 in reserves.
-
IDF reports of an air defense exercise of an "unprecedented scale", involving the Iron Dome and Patriot being live fired against target drones a large number of times over 1 night. Will update when I can. Delegations of experts from the US and Greece were present.
-
Some news: 188th brigade has been selected to receive the new Merkava 4 Barack MBTs, starting 2021. The 401st brigade is currently receiving new Merkava 4M tanks with an unspecified improved FCS. The 847th brigade completed the transition of one battalion and is in the process of transitioning the remaining 2 battalions to the Merkava 4 (without Trophy). The 434th brigade has received new BMS for all its tanks. Development of the Merkava 4 Barack is said to be in full swing. It's easy even for Israeli vets to get confused with the brigade numbers and names, so I'm reposting an old list I've made (updated) for reference:
-
Not 2 versions. One simply doesnt have the mantlet which adds quite a lot of "shape" to it, and the perspective on the full turret is pretty bad.
-
In the second pic at least, yeah.
-
Regularly, course correction would be done by the Raz radar, aka EL/M-2084. Observation on the ground is done by artillery officers, who I know exist in the infantry corps, but not in the armored corps.
-
Experimental units also partake in combat duty. It's actually important that they do, to test out their new equipment. Such experimental units can either be specialized units dealing only in experimentation and testing of new equipment, or regular units given the task of testing new gear.
-
Not really sure how you came to that conclusion. It replaces the TC's sight.
-
In only some cases, mainly when you can flank a vehicle. But the Trophy's slew-to-cue capability, which is a capability that is quite common among other types of APS and not exclusive to the Trophy, makes this scenario quite unlikely. A new capability needs to characterize an anti-APS setup for proper defeat of Trophy - a mechanism to launch nearly simultaneously up to 4 munitions, and for all munitions to fly a different path plus be completely independent of external guidance. The latter case is particularly important because a slew-to-cue means that the tank is likely to return fire before the ATGMs reach it, due to the relative speed of a tank's munition compared with an ATGM. Simply put, none yet has a weapon that can defeat all types of APS. The Afganit and GL-5 can be defeated most easily, followed by Zaslon. But on Russia's side, there's no weapon that can effectively defeat a western APS. I'm talking about non-MBT-equipped weapons.
-
-
I spotted a real gem among these photos. Can anyone identify it before I post it?
-
A radar detects the missile/RPG at launch, or close to launch. Deceiving it to receive a wrong data on the shooter's location is difficult without stealth technologies. Deceiving it to perceive a decoy as a real threat, requires giving the decoy the same parameters as the real one - speed, size, and shape. But when doing that, it might be easier to just put 2 live rockets and be done with it.
-
Yes, Trophy and other launcher based APS can defend against the Javelin, and against other top attack munitions. Rheinmetall's ADS can also defeat top attack munitions if its modules are configured in that way, although some setups may not allow it. Top attack munitions are only effective against completely static launchers. The Afganit and GL-5 are using static horizontal launchers, so they cannot defeat top attack munitions. The FGM-148 Javelin can defeat both, but recently Rafael debuted the Spike LR2 with an exceptionally high angle of attack to increase chances of defeating said APS. I assume MBDA's MMP is also capable of selecting an angle of attack. I think that Loser meant is that many other RPGs have a tandem warhead and what makes the RPG-30 unique is a decoy which has zero utility against ERA. Are you saying the RPG-30 was not designed to defeat APS? If so, what is the purpose of a decoy?
-
The missiles seem to be launched one by one. To ensure defeat of the Trophy, you'd have to launch them simultaneously. Additionally, since the Trophy adds a slew-to-cue feature, i.e it points the gun at the launch source, you'll basically have the turret front facing the two missiles. Since Trophy, in all current known implementations, has significant overlapping coverage zones, both its launchers can be activated to defeat both missiles. Last but not least, one of the arguments against the RPG-30 was that statistically, any projectile flying directly behind another projectile, is basically guaranteed to be hit by one of the EFPs of the Trophy's interceptor. Same goes for this new demonstration with the Red Arrow ATGM. It was designed to defeat APS. At some point, because Trophy was the only APS in service at the time, and still is, someone decided to claim it's designed to defeat Trophy, to which Rafael simply replied that the RPG-30 is too primitive in its design to defeat Trophy, and features nothing that could improve its chances over a typical RPG.
-
I don't see the relevance in this question. The technology transfer was done about 15 years ago. Roketsan has shown it can at least make adjustments to existing armor, which takes a great deal of expertise as well. These various ERA modules look nothing like those IMI supplied to them for the Sabra, and eventually every development of any kind of technology at least to some extent bases itself on some hard founded technology.
-
Makes me think that it IS some sort of upgrade to the Bradley, based on the AMPV perhaps. Because the OMFV has to have a crew of 3 and they need to sit in a capsule. These models show a design without a capsule.
-
Here's hoping these are not what the US Army envisions for the OMFV.
-
Protection against IEDs is part of the TUSK. An improvement in the frontal armor was needed to cope with new and emerging threats like the T-14.
-
General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.
Mighty_Zuk replied to LoooSeR's topic in Mechanized Warfare
I think it's mostly an evidence of corruption within the Russian MIC and MoD, or a great deal of inefficiency. They have a good amount of R&D centers for all sorts of weaponry, systems, sub-systems, and technologies. They have the production capability to put out quite a lot of modern equipment in service, and the budget to do so at a good rate. But a lot of it is being wasted on absolute nonsense. These technicals and other sorts of impractical weaponry, are all just there to divert more of the budget to the R&D centers even when it's not needed. Give them work when there isn't any. Inefficiency is the plague of all state-owned companies. It's time Russia makes the right decision and privatize at least most of its MIC. In Israel we're suffering from the same problem. IAI and Rafael are extremely big. IAI is the largest defense company in Israel, yet makes less the Elbit. IMI was brought to the point of constant net losses and had to be privatized. Now there are talks about merging IAI and Rafael and privatizing them. So until Rostec loses at least most of its assets, we will probably keep seeing this sort of shit. -
No. It has developed a new family of armor to replace the HAP-1/2/3, but no info on the status of the DU.
