Mighty_Zuk

46 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

If this is true then:

- Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is.

- Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio

- Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently.

- T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio

 

I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.

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):

9 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Typo, 3500 missiles.

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.

On 4/14/2019 at 7:01 PM, LoooSeR said:

http://www.tsn24.ru/kbp-zakazhet-3-5-tysyachi-korpusov-protivotankovyx-upravlyaemyx-raket.html

35000 Kornets in 2019 are planned to be made, apparently.

 

$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.

3 minutes ago, Adraste said:

It has yet to be seen whether the IDF will install Trophy APS on the 188th Brigade's Merkava mk3. Since the 188th will switch to MK4 Barak after 2020, I doubt the IDF will make the costly investment on tanks that were not initially designed to host such a power-hungry devise like the Trophy APS. They didn't retrofit non-Trophy MK4 with the APS (yet), why would they do it for older and less capable tanks?

The idea is to retrofit the system to reservists tanks, which includes the Mark 3, and I assume also means Mark 4A/B.

5 hours ago, Adraste said:

The decision to replace the Merkava 3D Baz with MK4 Barak appears to be in line with the purchase of 270 GD883 (MTU883) engine to power the Namer instead of the Merkava MK3's old Continental AVDS-1790 engine. It will facilitate the jobs of the maintenance, logistics and repair units in the field and in the warehouse and be more cost-effective and time-efficient with one common powertrain for each active tank and infantry heavy armor brigade.

 

It would have been a shame and an enlistment nightmare that the 188th Barak Brigade continues with older MK3 tanks while the 401th get two generation of MK4 consecutively (3 if we count the MK4M). Barak tank for the Barak Brigade is justice!

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:

1. 188th brigade has been selected to receive the new Merkava 4 Barack MBTs, starting 2021.
2. The 401st brigade is currently receiving new Merkava 4M tanks with an unspecified improved FCS.
3. 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).
4. The 434th brigade has received new BMS for all its tanks.
5. 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:

Spoiler

Armored Corps Brigades
Tag	Name	No#	Division	Command	Equipment
Active Brigades
	Storm from Golan	7	36th	North	Merkava 4M
	Barak	188	36th	North	Merkava 3D Baz
	Iron Tracks	401	162nd	South	Merkava 4M
	Bnei Or	460	80th	South	Merkava 4M and 3D Baz (also instructional)
Reserve Brigades
	Kiryati	4	319th	North	Merkava 4
	Zaken	8	91st	North	Merkava 3A
	Arel	10	252nd	South	Merkava 2
	Crushers	14	252nd	South	Merkava 3
	Oryx	37	162nd	South	Merkava 3D Baz
	Iron Fist	205	319th	North	Merkava 3D Baz
	Yiftach	434	210th	North	Merkava 3D Baz
	Steel Chariots	847	340th	Central	Merkava 2 Transitioning to Merkava 4

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.

3 hours ago, Serge said:

I know this theory. 

But are the FO still not under armor ? How are- they working now ?

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.

1 hour ago, Serge said:

The question is : why such a large sight ?

So, it’s not a basic tank. 

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.

47 minutes ago, Serge said:

Artillery forward observer. 

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion. It replaces the TC's sight.

36 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Trophy have 1 launcher per side. Zaslon have 1 per side, some for few other APS. Firing 2 real missiles make some sense, main thing is timing.

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?

4 minutes ago, Serge said:

To deceive an APS, you must first work on the path of flight of the aggressor. 

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.

3 hours ago, HAKI2019 said:

 

Another question about TROPHY is that whether it can protect tank from ATGM like FGM-148s.Many chinese believe FGM-148 is the most dangerous ATGM because it attacks the top of tank .

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.

2 hours ago, grabie said:

 

RPG30 uses a main RPG with a tandem warhead so yes it is.

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.

2 hours ago, grabie said:

No it wasn´t, read the articles I linked.

 

This was my last contribution in the forum. Been harassed in every of my few posts with  no reason.

Are you saying the RPG-30 was not designed to defeat APS? If so, what is the purpose of a decoy?

2 hours ago, HAKI2019 said:

I am a chinese fan .The APS "TROPHY" arouse our interest because American tank M1A2 use them.

There are many ATGMs developed in china. One of them seems to be designed to defeat TROPHY，some informations show  the Russian is doing the same thing.

It can launch two ATGM continuously and hit on the one point .We have no ideas whether it works.

 

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.

1 hour ago, grabie said:

 

This concept was introduced some years ago with dual-RPG: https://www.wired.com/2008/11/russia-unveils/

https://soldat.pro/en/2018/07/03/rpg-30-kruk-rychnoi-protivotankovyi-granatomet/

But the initial purpose was to defeat ERA.

 

Thanks for the pics!

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.

21 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The question remains how much of it is locally developed. The deals when buying the M60T Sabra and when choosing the K2 Black Panther as base for the Altay tank both included technology transfer.

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.

4 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Here's hoping these are not what the US Army envisions for the OMFV.

27 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Sorry for the double post.  

What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver  to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.

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.

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. 

17 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog:



Has the US moved away from DU armor?

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.