Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from alanch90 in Active Protection System (APS) for tanks
Israeli defense writer for news site "IsraelDefense", Ami Rojkes Dombe, brings up a good point in a so-far-hebrew-only speculative article, that the Israeli MoD's project for a joint APS developed by all major gov't owned companies - IAI (radar), IMI (interceptor), and Rafael (electronic and overall architecture), is probably even more dead right now than it was in 2014.
The history goes a bit like this:
2006 - Rafael and IMI demonstrate their APS in state trials.
2007 - Trophy is selected to enter service.
2008 - Trophy enters production.
2009 - First battalion is fully equipped.
2014 - IMOD initiates program to develop joint APS by Rafael, IMI, and IAI, with Rafael being the prime contractor.
2016 - 2 brigades are fully equipped, and preparations made for production for Namers and Merkava 3 tanks.
2017 - Total of 1,000 new systems are on order until 2027, with an average production rate of 100 vehicles per year.
Now for the future:
2019 - Carmel project ends (cockpit design) and is superseded by Kaliya/Bullet, thus increasing the urgency for next gen APS.
2021 - Merkava 4 Barack tanks enter service with new APS capable of defeating KEPs.
2027 - Vehicles developed in the Kaliya/Bullet program enter service with a next generation APS.
So by 2021, which is relatively speaking right around the corner, The IMOD should have an anti-KEP APS already in service.
This puts quite a dent in that goal, but MANTAK can't really be blamed for falling behind schedule. It's very atypical for them. In the worst case, the MoD presents a schedule that is unnecessarily stretched, but MANTAK are known to always deliver.
Back to the speculation part:
The deal was that IMI, IAI, and Rafael will supply a joint APS. It was actually tried before, and failed. The companies did not agree to work together for a whole lot of reasons, mostly related to pride, even though they were government owned companies.
It was revived, and although nothing new of it came up throughout the years, other than that the Barack will get an anti-KEP APS which is without a shred of doubt a reference at the joint APS, it seems that the MAPS program of the US Armed Forces, along with the financial difficulties of IMI, have made a completion of this project somewhat unlikely.
What we know:
IMI is now being absorbed into Elbit, with the move perhaps being finalized before the end of 2018 (stock merger in November). Elbit, being a private company, can be far more aggressive in marketing than even Rafael and IMI were known to be, and they are showing that they can definitely swallow entire markets within Israel's defense industries. Rafael and IMI are fiercely fighting against each other in the US, Australia, and all over Europe, instead of working together on offering a joint system that shouldn't be more developmental than the new developmental iterations of the Trophy and Iron Fist. However there is one mitigating factor that should be taken into account:
The IDF is reportedly testing the IF-LC on the Eitan and D9 bulldozers, which should signal to Rafael that they may want a cooperation after all, to mitigate the threat presented by Elbit.
Mighty_Zuk reacted to alanch90 in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.
So, having proved that T-14 most likely can fit a 900+LOS thick armor module at the front, and hinted at the posibility that said module may be housing the good old bulging plates that have been in service since T-72B, i went ahead and tried to make an estimation to try to see if that armor package could meet the protection needs of the tank. For reference, i used the article about T-72B on tankograd (https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html#nera) since it is the best and most in depth insight into the bulging plates armor in english. I tried to extrapolate the estimation methods on that article for the T-72B/90 turret and adopt them to a 950mm thick armor, with both front and back plates sloped at 45 degrees.
Yep, the russians are totally using the 35 year old bulging plates array and getting away with it.
Lastly: as i said before, i suck at maths so all this could be totally wrong. Please be nice in your responses. And happy new year!
Mighty_Zuk reacted to alanch90 in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.
In first place i want to enphasize that what is below is highly deductive and speculative, and therefore could be totally wrong:
So i was thinking lately a lot about how to get a more precise idea of how well the T-14 was protected. Since that tank uses a lot of "recycled" late soviet technology, the best starting point to try to figure out T-14 capabilities would be to take a look at those prototypes. So thats how i got to the Obj 187, the competing design against would would become the T-90. Both tanks were using the latest soviet developments on NERA armor, the famous "bulging plates" whiose first version was mounted on the T-72B. In terms of armor design, the main difference between Obj 187 and Obj 188 was that the latter only featured such NERA array at the turret, since that couldn´t fit into its hull, relatively "thin" and heavily sloped. On the contrary, Obj 187 featured a much less angled UFP, but with much more volume available, ideal for mounting a NERA array, the ALWAYS TRUSTY Wikipedia states that Obj 187 hull had an LOS thickness of 950mm (of course the link to the source is dead), which doesn´t seem weird, since the turret (if im not mistaken) had an equal LOS thickness. Years passed and nowadays the T-90 models still use that exact NERA array (granted, since A model, in a welded turret which increases the overall effectivenes by 10-15 percent). In other words, russian engineers don´t consider those "bulging plates" obsolete, nor sort of a "bottleneck" in protection performance. Even more, since its introduction, T-90 has seen a major armor upgrade only once, and that was an upgrade to the outer ERA (Kontakt 5 into Relikt), leaving the same base armor untouched.Perhaps in the coming years we´ll even see a new version of T-90 but replacing Relikt with Malachit, who knows.
Now, think about this: if T-14 was using a completly new, "next gen", "wunderwaffe" base armor, then why bother adding ERA, and even more, not Relikt but an even more advanced type? The only explanation i find is that the russians don´t consider the base armor by itself as enough against present and near future threats, its not like tomorrow NATO tanks are going to start rocking the Rh130. Hell, the americans aren´t even sure if they are going to replace the Abrams with a tank or something that uses a conventional gun. So, in the face of not-so-changing threats, why using a fancy new base armor risking for its capabilities/design being leaked? Oh, and when it comes to soviet/russian tanks, there is a tendency for sensitive stuff to be leaked, for example just from the first public showing of the T-14 we got a PRETTY GOOD look at its composite roof armor. And here we come to the "over 900mm of effectiveness", claimed at various websites, without any substantial evidence. It just so happens that figure is roughly the equivalent of what a T-90M (+Relikt) could be considered, so stating "over 900mm" is just the same as to say that T-14 has higher protection than the aforementioned tank.
So these things were going in my head when i started considering that perhaps the T-14 was using that exact same ´bulging plates´ array and the increased frontal protection was to be explained mainly with the addition of the more advanced ERA. Considering the near future threats, the risks of leaks, and the need to keep costs down, using the tried and mastered armor makes a hell lot of sense, and when it comes to weapon design, the russians are pragmatic above everything else. So, to prove my point i had to be sure that T-14 has enough LOS thicknes at the UFP to mount such an array, meaning that it needs to be as minimum as thick as the T-90A turret. We know that the maximum LOS thickness of said turret is around 900mm, but the estimates (many of those on this very thread) vary from more than 1000mm to less than 500mm. What was needed was actually an image showing T-14 and T-90A from the same distance and perspective, and then i remembered this image:
The next step was to edit the image so that the turret armor and T-14 UFP would be side by side and see what comes up:
The top comparison features both tanks without any scalling on my side. For the bottom one, i tried to scale the T-9A turret down a bit, since it is closer to the camera and because of that in the original picture it appears as larger when compared to T-14 hull. Of course that IM NOT a profesional at image analysis nor i have any kind of "pro software" i just made that edit by eye using the tankers (specifically, their headgear) for reference. As you can see, in the rough "scaled" comparison T-90A armor package would fit like a glove into T-14 UFP. Needles to say, any kind of a real professional at this kind of analysis (which i presume are abundant on these forums) can pick it up from here and make a proper comparison.
IF Malachit ERA needs some empty space in relation to base armor in order to function as designed, IF therefore T-14 frontal armor is angled more like Obj 187, IF the russians are still using the same armor package as the one equipped on T-90A, THEN we can estimate T-14 base armor as comparable as to the T-90 frontal turret at its thickest LOS.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Sovngard in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.
IIRC the 44S-sv-Sh steel is meant for the protection of external modules (e.g panoramic sight and the turret's protective sheet) in vehicle applications. Otherwise it is marketed for use as body armor, as it is specialized for protection against small arms.
So no, it's not going to save any meaningful amount of weight on the T-14, but it still exists on the tank as well as any recent AFV that has external modules to protect.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Alzoc in General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.
Gabriel 5, or ANAM, for those wondering.
I don't know exactly why it was kept semi-secret for so long, despite being seen several years ago, but I believe the IDF will soon buy it in large quantities, as they never upgraded their Harpoon missiles since they bought the outdated Block II.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Adraste in Israeli AFVs
The tank upgrade rotations are one battalion per year. There are typically 3 battalions per traditional brigade (armored, pre-BCT), so it's a 3 year process (won't withdraw from the Merkava 4M production though), and it should initiate once the trials for the system are done and it's cleared for production.
Now, in February this year an experimental tank was shown with the system, along with an official statement that the process should take 3 years. Since the last enlistment cycle of the year is in November, I assume we should see the first battalion operational with the tank around January-February 2019.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Laviduce in General AFV Thread
Yes, it is.
All the listed IFVs are made either by countries that are members of NATO, or companies whose home markets are NATO members.
NATO has a protection standard called STANAG 4569 to which the IFVs listed must conform.
This standard lists anything from protection against 5.56mm ball ammunition, to 30mm APFSDS.
The list exists here in a neat fashion.
NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6).
The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown.
Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE.
KF31 and KF41 have yet unknown levels of protection. However, due to their weight, especially with the KF41's weight being in the mid 40's and up to 50 tons, it is estimated to have ballistic protection somewhat above normal NATO levels.
Those that have additional ERA over the sides, may well have level 6 protection at the sides, as most ERA manufacturers claim level 6 protection for their armor blocks (when laid over some minimal base armor). This includes the Puma, as well as the ASCOD/Ajax and Bradley.
Heavy IFVs such as the Namer and T-15, are expected to have levels of protection closer to those of an MBT, with the Namer being said to be more protected than the Merkava it's based on, and no known claims of the T-15.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from alanch90 in Israeli AFVs
It always was just that. The FCS of course includes everything related to sensory, which means sensor fusion, helmet mounted visors, VR training, additional sensors etc.
If you fantasized about a new gun, a new engine (which was speculated at one time but confirmed to be untrue), or generally anything that would require a very serious change to the logistical requirements for the tank, or an expensive structural change, then you're all out of luck.
Mighty_Zuk reacted to LoooSeR in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
IS-3 on Shikotan island.
Mighty_Zuk got a reaction from Belesarius in Israeli AFVs
Some NEWS my Bois:
847th brigade (reserve) has completed the induction of one Merkava 4 battalion and is preparing to induct 2 more battalions. 401st brigade (active) is preparing to receive tanks with improved FCS, and will be the first to acquire the Barak.