Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Long_Rodney

Excommunicated
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Long_Rodney

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Trophy does not have blind spots on the top. Its blast shields are placed in a way that even allows both launchers to overlap at some points. Any APS can fire on the move. If you have the processing power, software, and software optimization, then adding an on-the-move capability is a piece of cake. Even simpler systems that are widespread across western armies, have yet to find their way into Russian tanks (modernized, not T-14). So it would not make sense to suddenly fund APS for T-72 tanks.
  2. My claim on the unmanned turret is based on modern trends seen on IFVs, and also the T-14 MBT. Therefore I assume that when it comes to the 'metals', the M1A3 will look a lot like the TTB. Except the automotive technologies have changed quite dramatically, so the crew can be placed in an armored capsule either in front of the turret, or behind it. I also want to add that another issue to think about when considering whether a turret should be manned or unmanned, is the topic of space. The next generation of AFVs will utilize a much more extensive package of sensors than today's AFVs, which multiple crew hatches will surely bother.
  3. Yes and no. The M1A3 is part of the NGCV project. The NGCV can be split between vehicles that are in service, or close to entering service, and vehicles that are only in early stages of development. All these vehicles are included in the NGCV because the Army plans to incorporate some of the core technologies developed in that project, into every AFV. Whether the vehicle is "new" or "old" only affects how much of the less important and more peripheral tech can be added as well. So in a way, they DO have some definitive plans for the M1A3 Abrams, and you can pretty much guess them by following the requirements of the OMFV. The process is similar in Israel and Germany+France (I assume, because the european project is still under wraps), where a unified architecture is pursued for multiple vehicles at once. So my take on it is that the M1A3 is very likely to have: 1)2-man crew. 2)automatic and unmanned turret. 3)autonomous driving. 4)automatic cuing to target. 5)multi-sensor pre-firing and post-firing target detection. 6)automated target recognition. 7)360° vision system. And perhaps I'm missing a few. Overall can be seen as very similar, if not identical to Carmel. It could be that RAPAT and CCDCGVSC (formerly TARDEC) are cooperating on requirement setting and technological demonstrations. First physical evidence for that was a substantial American presence during the Carmel's demonstrations. It was said, I believe around 2016-2017, that a new M1A3 might have a 3rd crewman to operate unmanned or special systems. If so, it does not yet mean the 2 man crew part is untrue. The Carmel is also said to have a 2-man crew, but in every demonstration video it was shown to have 3 seats, with 1 belonging to a person that may not be present at all times. That is, you can expect the M1A3 to drive with a core 2 person crew, and in certain missions where unmanned vehicles are required, a specialist will enter a special station in the vehicle and operate the systems. After reading the same about the Carmel, I've hypothesized it could be just a special version for the platoon commander level (and above). Alternatively, a special drone operating crew could hitch a ride on a recon unit's vehicles.
  4. On a serious note, who manufactures the Kinzhal and Epoch, and what's the naming pattern for turrets if it conflicts with air launched missiles?
  5. You forgot the rest of the videos on that channel, that detail weekly maintenance for other crewmen. The above video shows the driver. Gunner: Loader: TC:
  6. Why limit yourself to 20mm-40mm when obviously all turrets, be it small RWS or up to tank turrets, are following the same trends? 2 decades ago, turrets would consist of usually just 3 key components: 1)Effector. 2)Sight systems. 3)FCS for ballistic calculations only. In 2006, the paradigm changed when APS started maturing and were about to enter service. By 2019 there are already hundreds of turrets in service with an integrated APS. But that's not all. APS are revolutionary not only because of the massive added protection, but because they turn the previously sight-heavy sensory suit to a hybrid one consisting of radars as well. In 2016 the next paradigm change came with the introduction of revolutionary, instead of evolutionary, sighting systems that give crews the capacity to receive substantially more data, and along with that, removes some of the key advantages of manned turrets, in a time where unmanned turrets already had a substantial edge. The key arguments for unmanned turrets are greatly increased internal volume for IFVs, increased safety for MBTs (no crew deaths in catastrophic kills), and ease of communication between the crew members. The key argument for manned turrets is the ability to fight with open hatches and see the battlefield for better situational awareness. That argument is basically gone with modern sight systems such as Elbit's IronVision or BAE's BattleView 360. Yet another paradigm change is being pushed by the American NGCV program's OMFV, and Israel's Carmel. This one includes sensor fusion, autonomous driving, and vastly reduced task load via assistive or completely autonomous processes. The radars no longer merely detect a threat after a projectile is launched, but are used to scan the terrain. Other sensors like LIDAR, optics, and acoustics, will scan the terrain as well, and detect targets both before firing and after firing. All these, together with the radar and other potential sensors I haven't listed, will simultaneously scan the terrain and detect targets via sensor fusion algorithms in order to increase reliability and resolution, and reduce false alarms. If you want to stay ahead of the competition, all these are a must to integrate on modern turrets. Some of this tech is not yet mature for immediate implementation, but feasibility was demonstrated very clearly. You want my opinion on what should be the NEXT paradigm change? Multi-layered, multi-effector APS. Imagine in 2030 when tech allows ground vehicles to operate systems with huge power output requirements. The top layer APS would be a high powered laser that would be able to defeat missiles and artillery projectiles from a long range, capable of dealing with fairly high saturation. The next layer would involve a Quick-Kill style missile launcher that would send small missiles to defeat KEPs/LRPs. Next layer is an Iron Fist style system to defeat all target types at the short-medium range. Final layer is an ADS/RAP or Trophy Lite style system (static interceptors) to defeat projectiles in the terminal stage. Overburdened platform you say? Well not at all. The rotating launchers can be placed on the turret, i.e the laser and Iron Fist style APS. The rest, Quick Kill and static interceptors, placed on the hull. They will share effectors with other systems, for example the MGs will be able to try and shoot the target projectiles, even if the probability of hitting is not very high it can still help. Or in case of nearby hostile infantry, VBIEDs, or other immediate hazards, some APS effectors could be activated if the main weapon systems are either busy or would not respond quickly enough. But the more important aspect is the fact that with longer range APS, it will be possible for AFVs to increase their ability to protect convoys of unprotected vehicles like logistics. It will provide a full new layer of defense for such vehicles, that previously had to rely on evasive maneuvers as their last line of defense, which was greatly mitigated by their almost nonexistent ability to detect attacks. And another thing I want to add, is exportation of sensors. Every AFV should be able to deploy sensors via any means available. Importation of data is already enabled via BMS, but exportation of sensors, whether via tethered or untethered drones, is still only being talked about. And finally, it's not just about the turret, but what layers of weapon systems, defensive systems, sensors, and data analysis tools you have.
×
×
  • Create New...