Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
There doesn't have to be any difference. That's the whole point - utilize existing components to create a tactically more suitable solution. All cars everywhere around the world are not much different from one another. And yet you see people driving smart cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, minivans, etc etc, because each one has a different need. One may need to just drive small distances and fit in tight parking lots. Another one may need to carry medium sized cargo over long distances. And another one would need to haul a lot of cargo in urban settings. Similarly, the IDF needs systems that can defend cities, bases, FOBs, national infrastructure and other static installations, and it also needs a system based on the same principle or components, that would be able to protect moving forces while itself being on the move, or with very short preparation time. I don't think you've ever seen a 'normal' Iron Dome battery. It takes quite a while to set up. Not something ideal in a combat situation where you need to care about 3 things simultaneously: Staying far enough behind to lower the risk of enemy skirmishes. Staying close enough to provide sufficient protection to all elements of the brigade. Being able to deal with a sudden volley, as artillery fire is typically concentrated in short but powerful bursts to inflict damage before troops dig in. A system as bulky and complex as the Iron Dome is not capable of doing all three at the same time. That necessitates new development, which merely bunches up all the components on one truck. Of course, we don't see the control room, so that may be part of the HQ unit. When you have not one radar, but many radars, split between each launcher vehicle, you can, for example, maintain a constant situation of 2 launchers static and defending the brigade while another 2 are driving alongside the forces, and then switching roles every couple minutes. In a typical Iron Dome battery, though, if you move the radar, the entire battery shuts down. You may say "Why not just buy 2 radars and that's it?", and to that I will say the MMR (Raz - Rav Zro'i), is too expensive. What you see mounted on these trucks is just small blocks taken from that radar and fitted in a dome structure. It lowers the detection range quite severely, but it still allows full utilization of the Iron Dome's energetic envelope, and significantly lowers costs (imagine it being only 10% of the Raz radar).
-
Active Protection System (APS) for tanks
Mighty_Zuk replied to asaf's topic in Ballistics Science Discussion
I think it's important to show residual damage caused by the defeated warhead, and demonstrate that external and sensitive equipment on the turret will not be damaged, or at least its damage can be prevented with a very minimal level of armor. -
Just because the components are moved by truck, doesn't make it fully mobile. A truly mobile system is what something along the lines of the Soviet Pantsir, Tor, or M-VSHORAD of the US Army. Something you mount on one truck and can respond within seconds, or at worst a minute or two, to incoming fire. A typical Iron Dome battery takes several minutes to set up each component, and is thus suitable for defense of cities, strategic installations, or FOBs, but not mobile troops.
-
Export.... to whom? Most countries who would choose to buy a Rafael IADS would either buy a SpyDer or a David's Sling, but not the Iron Dome, because these are designed from the beginning to be more suitable for a conventional threat rather than artillery and the likes of it. The US is the only customer so far, and they're going for the static version and an eventual integration with the MML. The only customer that specifically requested a completely mobile unit, is the IDF. Which makes sense because Rafael released this image when the IDF declared its intentions to purchase a mobile Iron Dome dubbed iDome by Rafael.
-
Someone needs to fucking DAB on the British MoD.
-
From a couple months ago: Just replace the MAN truck with an Oshkosh.
-
Nope. Not this. What you see here is merely the launcher of a static system. The mobile version will have only 10 missiles and not 20, will have its own radar on the same vehicle, and I assume also a control room in there as well.
-
Yes, the IDF will have mobile IADS systems like the several decades old Vulcan, it will be called Gideon's Shield and will include a mobile Iron Dome battery and an unspecified laser-based weaponry, could be Iron Beam or a low powered laser to down quadcopters. And it won't buy the SpyDer because it already has the Iron Dome instead, and because these two systems fulfill two very different needs. Iron Dome is an extremely versatile system with a focus on very cheap operation that is excellent against ballistic threats and adequate against other threats, while the SpyDer utilizes substantially more expensive components that increase its capability specifically against fixed wing aircraft and distant cruise missiles, but completely invalid against ballistic threats due to its cost. When it comes to intercepting aircraft breaching Israeli airspace, the IDF already possesses plenty enough IADS systems that are extremely capable in that role, such as the PAC-2GEM, David's Sling, and a well dispersed aerial fleet. It's true that Rafael and IAI are government-owned, and design and build things based on IDF requirements, but they too develop technologies and weapon systems geared for export.
-
IAI's ADA family of products now reaches ground combat vehicles in the ADA-O version. It's a device that enables maintaining the GPS link even in environments with intense jamming. It goes without saying that operation in GPS-jammed environment has been a major capability desired, and thus reflected in R&D of many pieces of equipment, for a few years now. Rafael has also chosen to start marketing its FireWeaver system, a major evolution in the architecture of BMS, and now says it is the world's most mature system, following successful field trials with the IDF.
-
The M113 are too old, too poorly protected, and too underpowered, to have any significant capability upgrade without creating an entirely new vehicle. These turrets will be mounted on Namer and Eitan IFVs. As for the Yagu, there is currently no plan to purchase them. The niche it fills is not ideal for the IDF. It is suitable for a small crew and small capacity. Protection is limited and seems to be fitted far more for special forces rather than regular forces. Plasan offers, other than the Yagu, the Hyrax and the Sandcat, which can replace the David and HMMWV respectively.
-
It's called "Panther" (with a hard T), based on the FMTV as I've guessed, and is quite ugly, keeping with the Ze'ev's legacy. It weighs in excess of 10 tons, built for peacekeeping operations, and is the 2nd prototype. A final prototype will include 2 collapsible seats for arrests. It is said that equipping it with light Trophy is too expensive (duh), and not required for its mission parameters anyway.
-
Is that like an aura effect for Indian modes of transport, or are they intentionally trying to boost some stats on the Arjun?
-
Yes
-
The JLTV and derivatives are indeed considered, but as I said the IDF is currently involved in a very long series of parallel acquisitions and R&D projects. Key projects include: Rebuilding of training camps and bases. Creation of new logistical centers. Re-equipping the entire truck fleet. New F-35 aircraft. New tankers. New medium cargo helicopters. Dolphin 2 submarines. Sa'ar 6 corvettes (frigates). Merkava 4 Barack. Eitan IFV. Namer IFV. Carmel. New uniforms. New howitzers. New 'smart' sights. New BMS. New APS. More Iron Dome batteries/missiles. More Stunner missiles. Iron Beam. And of course a good chunk of its budget goes towards paying huge pensions, and it has recently also increased salaries across the board by some 50%. This is a huge amount of work the IDF is trying to complete in such a little amount of time, despite no significant change to the economy or budget. It is practically unprecedented for it. So it is totally understandable that they may lack money for some unmentioned projects, like the several thousands of needed MRAPs, or V-22 aircraft for its special forces.
-
Do I really need to explain again that the IDF IS getting MRAPs? The Egyptian border is not dangerous enough to deploy current heavily protected vehicles. This incident is very much an abnormality.
-
@alanch90 your concept may work only if the ATGM can initiate AND remain effective at a point of 50 meters or higher from the tank, and then it would be a simple arms race of incremental upgrades and not revolutionary tech. The Trophy is able to intercept targets at tens of meters away. I believe in the region of 30-40m. Also take into account that roof armor exists. On the Merkava 4 it's exceptionally thick, and if current trends of development remain as they are, it's possible that many tanks in the future will feature enhanced roof armor.
-
Seems like an AMRAAM that went down. Only the F-16 can fire the AMRAAM in the PAF.
-
If that's true, Modi probably did the right thing. The only intervention the political arm should have is setting the overall goals. Note the word "probably", because if he hasn't set any objectives, then giving the army free reign is an act of incompetence.
-
The lengths a man would go for some bobs.
-
With the Mark 3 it's a compromise in protection that is built in and thus accepted. I think we're only going to see these in the instructional unit.
-
It's hardly comparable to the Mk3. The Mk 3's hatch is thin like in every other tank, and manually moved. So it's easy to install a new hatch there. The Merkava 4, however, has a very thick turret roof armor, and the hatch is of the same thickness as the armor, thus requires a special mechanism to lift it. To install such a hatch, you'd have to replace the whole thing, and create quite a serious vulnerable point in the armor. It should, however, be noted that this is meant for instructional purposes.
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Mighty_Zuk replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Not really. Such ATGMs only fly over a target by a very short distance, and for a protracted period of time are within the kill zone of an APS. The only ATGM that is advertised, and is indeed seen, as an anti-APS weapon, is the Spike LR2, owing to its very high angle of attack. But even that is only a viable approach until adversaries choose to develop high coverage systems. The Afganit only covers the frontal arc and cannot protect well against elevated threats, so the Spike LR 2's developers capitalized on that. You might even say the Javelin and other top attack missiles can achieve the same feat with only a somewhat lower efficiency. Defeating an overflying top attack ATGM such as the Bill 2 is just a matter of a few lines of code. SACLOS missiles can be easily defeated by incremental upgrades to the AFV, with perhaps the sole exception of overhead ATGMs which can still be countered with low-tech solutions. Simply adding more layers of ERA, like on the Oplot, would do wonders against such missiles. I trust him, and I do remember hearing about that. It's just going to be funny to hear how they'd justify building Javelin missiles after claiming Kornets to be better. And yet it's still a step too short and too late. Among the growing trends in the west is signature management, specifically thermal. -
Rather bizarre image I found in another forum. A vision block above a hatch? Not really sure how it helps, as it cuts into the armor now, leaving a vulnerable spot above the TC's head, and Mark 4 tanks are supposed to be getting the IronVision anyway. Except this one specifically does not cut into the armor and seems to be just placed above the hatch without any visible attachment points. So who knows.
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Mighty_Zuk replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
This would make them useless against most soft targets. I'd vote against such a move. If you're talking about Ukraine, then yeah, but that's a short sighted solution because it depends on an economically weak Ukraine. Can't take into consideration multiple different maneuvers by the truck, or cannot fire against moving targets? Because the latter can be fixed by using an auto-tracker, a technology that exists in Russia. Against fast movers of any kind I'd opt for using an APFSDS (which actually was used operationally against VBIEDs). Spike NLOS is technically an ATGM, and I think its users are running with at least a few HEAT-equipped missiles nearby, plus in the new variant using a switch-enabled dual mode warhead, but for the most part the IDF's using it for tactical strikes against high value targets and is considered an integral part of the artillery units rather than seen as another AT weapon. That is primarily due to its range. Go even further and you're entrenching this mindset of it being a tactical precision strike weapon and further diminish its role as an AT weapon. The claim of F&F can be deceiving. As I said earlier, the Kornet-EM is considered an F&F but in closer inspection it really is just a modification to the launcher, while the missile itself remains the good old 2nd gen. After the US Army and MC will equip themselves with APS, they will have an extensive capability to destroy ATGM-launchers seconds after launch, and before the missile hits. Numerous other European armies are also either considering or already purchasing an APS. Against such an enemy this pseudo-F&F mode just won't work. You won't be able to shoot-and-scoot. If the launcher is destroyed or otherwise damaged in some way by return fire, the missile will not reach its target as you'd expect from a true F&F. Since the Epoch/Epokha turret uses Kornet-EM missiles, or some other variant of the Kornet, I'm inclined to believe they meant a launcher modification (auto-tracker) rather than any modification to the missile, because modifying the missile would almost certainly mean creating an entirely new missile. But if you can, please link GurKhan's post. I'd like to read it. They said they started filming around April IIRC, so that explains why they talked about such contract as a possibility instead of a fact.
