Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

rob89

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rob89

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. GDLS shown for the first time (?) the model of its new IFV, proposed for the Australian Army Land 400 Phase 3; this clearly leverages from the Ajax family . The new vehicle for Australia is fitted with a GDLS-designed two-person turret armed with a stabilised 30mm dual-feed autocannon. Hull and turret are fitted with a modular passive armour package and an APS to provide a high level of protection. Crew of commander, gunner and driver plus six dismounts.
  2. This 'Carmel' future armored vehicle project seems to me more and more a worderful compact 'turtle', with amazing situational awareness (the Rafael solution is largely the best concept I've ever seen), great firepower (even better with the ATK 50 Supershot), mobility and probably also great protection, passive (a so compact 36 ton AFV could be over Stanag 6 level) and active, with its APS. I think it could be a perfect platform for ISR and strike missions, in the role of forward echelon / covering force of the heavy armored brigades.
  3. US Army's different opinions about future https://mwi.usma.edu/heavyweights-battlefield-us-army-will-need-largest-armored-vehicles-next-war/ https://mwi.usma.edu/light-mobile-many-rethinking-future-armor/
  4. Al-Khalid : the astonishing tank that will compete with the amazing Arjun a new variant showed for the first time by the Pakistani Army ...
  5. Some questions for the experts about autocannons. Is the new Rheinmetall 35mm x228 Wotan a derivation of the Rh 503 (and therefore linked to the Bushmaster III 35/50 family)? and, in this case, is it possible to expect a future evolution in a 50mm Wotan / Supershot, with the same interchangeability's characteristics ? What could be an estimated value of muzzle velocity and the penetration capability of APFSDS of the 50mm Supershot ? (Williams in his 2013 addenda to the "Rapid Fire" book wrote about 140mm RHAe@1500m@90°) thank you in advance PS : a thread about modern/future autocannons and the implications of their evolution could be very interesting sorry if if already exists and I missed it
  6. I still think that two cannons and related autoloaders, ammunitions and so on, in the same MBT is a conceptual error. The future MBTs should be, if possible and "coeteris paribus", smaller and not larger. The simplest (and current tech) solution to the APS problem remains, IMO, the saturation tactics. If a volley of artillery/heavy mortar smart EFP falls on the MBTs' position in the same moment as they are under fire from 120/130mm APFSDS, the APS has to choose and there are good chances that some shot (from above or from the front) will pass the barrier. And, in any case, the possibilities of jamming the APS'sensors will be, almost surely, improved in the future.
  7. At the end, a 4x SPH's battery, with a MRSI volley, is the simpliest and most effective solution to disable (with a high probability) all enemies' sensors, without so many complications. A 130/140mm long barrel MBT (with APS, autoloader, heavy armor and all needed electronics and sensors) would already be a damn huge vehicle, without complicating it with a further (and dual feed !) autocannon ... IMHO, if necessary, it's better a two vehicle solution : an HMBT + a "begleitpanzer" (on the same hull), with high elevation, dual-feed autocannon and missiles.
  8. Leaving aside the technical and tactical considerations, how huge and expensive would be a similar MBT, with a 130mm plus autoloader and a dual-feed autocannon, plus APS, last generations materials (and relative armor to protect it), sensors and electronics and so on ? How many of them the european armies, with limited budgets, could buy ? And if they will be huge, very expensive and few, they also will be a priority targets for enemy NLOS/PGM systems ... Is this the right way ?
  9. The explosions of a HEAT against an AFV or the AFV itself are not so healthy for the nearby infantry. Neither are the explosions of artillery sub-munitions or airburst shells. AFVs in modern army are very few; their main threats is / will be in the NLOS/PGM/top attack systems. I think that all the "old" conventional tactics of MBT/IFV plus dismounted infantry should be revisited in the lights of the developments of weapons systems and, accordingly, the AFV design.
  10. Beyond all words and data, I think that the swedish 1994 contest was the better evaluation of last 20 century MBTs' generation. And the winner was ... You all know ... Since then the MBTs have evolved, but the scenarios and threats more. I think it's a bit weird today to continue evaluating MBT/AFVs just for LOS-RHAe on the frontal arc. There are a lot of NLOS/PGM/top attack systems that could destroy every AFV beyond visual range (BVR, as for modern aircraft). In my modest opinion it's very strange that the absolute need for APS system is again so underestimated. I hope that next generation AFVs (starting with the future German-French MBT) will take into accounts that scenarios and threats and therefore have a really "revolutionary" approach best regards
  11. Does it mean that all the 2A5 converted from old 2A4 (for ex. the ex-Netherland ones, now in Finland) have these structural weakness and risk to crack, due to their upgraded weight, now above 60 tons ? It seems quite unbelievable ...
  12. In the AW forum there are some pretty sensational revelations (by the user Damian) about the characteristics of Leo 2 armor of early variants and about the chassis and AMAP-B too (Poland AFV, pg.95). https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?24934-Polands-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles&p=1869758&viewfull=1#post1869758 What do you think ?
  13. I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages. Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)? In any case I find that some of the adopted solutions are very interesting : - the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) - the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile) - the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion. best regards
  14. A question for the forum' experts Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects? Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ? thank you in advance best regards PS : why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?
×
×
  • Create New...