-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by StarshipDirect
-
Fuel efficiency will be prioritized over weight. Saving 1 ton of engine weight is not a big tradeoff for fuel and oil costs. Even with the fuel efficient LV100 you still need a lot of oils. Not sure if Honeywell will even offer the LV100. The Army has invested a lot of money into Cummins for the Advanced Combat Engine.
-
The TC hatch has no periscopes which tells me these hatches are only used for maintenance related issues. It should be an unmanned turret. Keeping the turret armored despite not having a crew is to protect the weapons system and it makes sense to do so. All the fuel from the front of the hull will be shifted to the rear since the Army is dumping the turbine for a diesel which takes up roughly half the space of the AGT1500. If you look closely there’s a hatch periscope directly in the center of the hull and to the left side. Makes no sense to have the hatches on only one side of the hull so there has to be a third on the right side but it’s hidden.
-
Turret is slimmed down for sure to reduce weight. I see no visible turret hatches with periscopes. Most likely an unmanned turret. Tim Ryan secured funding for GDLS a while back to develop an unmanned turret for the Abrams. Those things below the turret cheeks might be cameras for 360 awareness. Or maybe the hull hatches are swung open to the side. I see the smoke grenades are integrated into the turret as well. The hull may have been lengthened for the extra crew hence the redesigned mud flaps.
-
One thing I don’t like about this turret is the placement of the CITV. They should wrap the RWS around the CITV and put it towards the back of the turret. Seems kind of dumb to put both sights right next to each other and directly in the way of the RWS. I like Raytheon’s battle guard design. The turret appears to have high gun elevation and room for the larger 50mm ammo. Missile launcher on the right side with both a javelin and tow launcher that flips upwards. I wonder what APS this turret can handle besides iron fist.
-
Did you not see the picture I posted above showing the MCT-30 with a Javelin ATGM and Hydra 70 rocket pod mounted to the sides of the turret? One would assume this turret doesn’t need an RWS to launch ATGMs. If a manned Bradley turret can mount Iron Fist why wouldn’t this turret be able to? Call it my interpretation but it seems really pointless for Kongsberg to offer a turret that can’t fire ATGMs or mount an APS. It would also be a terrible decision for the Army to buy a turret that can’t utilize these options.
-
These turrets are designed to be modular, you’d be surprised what types of modifications they can do with a simple looking turret. Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf
-
Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside.
-
I’m sure Poland and some other Eastern European countries have shown interest. This would make make a good replacement for the PT-91 and T-72 for Polish Army
- 390 replies
-
- knds
- demonstrator
- (and 9 more)