Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2018 at 1:39 AM, Scolopax said:

I'd agree.  Mock-up then?

It is elevated and if you look closely you can see that photo is not perfectly from above vehicle, so perspective is distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rbc.ru/business/09/06/2018/5b1baf419a79476d6dd11200?from=main

Quote

Volgograd plant "Red October", which produces steel for the tanks "Armata", reduced wages to employees in May because of the production being stopped for the time of the footbal World Cup. Some employees were sent on leave for two months.

/.../

   The union of the plant wrote an appeal addressed to President Vladimir Putin and his plenipotentiary in the Southern Federal District, Vladimir Ustinov. "Now the company is in a catastrophic situation, which can lead to its complete halt: there are massive dismissals of employees (currently more than 3 thousand people are fired), the activity of steel smelters is suspended, wages are not paid in full and are constantly delayed. Under the threat of disruption there is also a state defense order, "reads the appeal

/.../

In January 2018, the general director of the Red October, Igor Sizov, said that the plant would be stopped in the summer for the time of the World Cup. At the same time it became known that the FSB required several enterprises located in 11 regions to stop production for the duration of the football championship. It was a question of dangerous industries, where chemical, biological, radioactive, toxic and explosive substances are produced.

/.../

   According to SPARK, the net loss of the "Red October" in 2016 amounted to 1.7 billion rubles. In May 2018, the Arbitration Court of the Volgograd Region introduced a monitoring procedure at the plant on the application of the Swiss Red October International, owned by Dmitry Gerasimenko. It is this structure that in 2013 redeemed "Red October" for 221 million rubles. In 2016, Gerasimenko was placed on an international wanted list by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs on charges of embezzling a $ 65 million of VTB loan. Later he was arrested in Cyprus, but then released on bail.

   According to Maxim Khudalov, the director of the corporate ratings group of ACRA, the state defense order takes up 70% in the proceeds of the Red October (in 2012, 7.3 billion rubles). He noted that the enterprise produces blanks from special steels, which can only be replaced with imports from China. "But, considering that the plant is in distress since 2007, it is unlikely that the defense industry is strongly tied up on it, most likely, an alternative to its products has long been found," the expert believes.

Footbal and idiotic functionaries put together are terrible force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no topic for tank FCS ,so I ask a question here.

Is it possible to replace the human gunner by a computed one  in current technology?

If not,what problems with it?

Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Konev said:

There is no topic for tank FCS ,so I ask a question here.

Is it possible to replace the human gunner by a computed one  in current technology?

If not,what problems with it?

Thanks!

 

 

Yes. Absolutely.

There is an emerging trend right now for "transparent armor".

The way it works is there's a ton of cameras outside, preferably well protected and concealed, and you can get a very quick all around view either via large screens (less preferable but cheaper solution) or helmets (more preferable but more expensive  solution).

 

Such technology is now being trialed in the US on the Bradley and later on in the NGCV, and in Israel on the Merkava 4, Namer, and Eitan. 

 

It reduces a traditional crew of 3 (commander, gunner, driver) to just 2 (commander and driver), and a crew of 4 (incl. loader) can be reduced to 3 if they choose not to use an automated loader.

It provides the commander with so much view over the battlefield that he does not really need a gunner to locate other targets jointly, and there are also technologies nowadays that do 90% of the targeting, especially in returning fire mode.

 

For example, we take a vehicle equipped with such vision system, and an APS as well. 

It gets an alert that an ATGM or APFSDS is fired against it, doesn't matter what, really. The radar identifies the location of the shooter and the gun lays automatically on the direction of the target. Modern object recognition systems already exist in FCS with automatic trackers so it can adjust its aim from approximate direction to pinpoint targeting. That process of receiving data and having the gun directly on target can take a second, and all that's left for the commander is to push the firing button. So the previous burden that required both a gunner and commander, is not there anymore. 

There is also debate whether the commander should even be required to push the button, so the system could do all the process even faster with no human input, but I don't think that debate will favor the machine.

 

In future vehicles like the Israeli Carmel and US NGCV, both the driver and commander will be sitting in the same capsule and both will have access to both the driving systems and firing systems, so the burden on each member is further reduced.

 

If what I wrote is not all too intuitive to you yet, try watching this video:

Spoiler

 

 

TLDR

Yes, you can remove the gunner completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Konev said:

There is no topic for tank FCS ,so I ask a question here.

Is it possible to replace the human gunner by a computed one  in current technology?

If not,what problems with it?

Thanks!

 

 

 

Hard, but possible.

Completely automatic fire control systems exist in aircraft and anti-aircraft systems.  The difference is that aircraft are usually silhouetted against the sky.  If you point a radar at an airplane in the sky, you'll get a very clean, crisp return from the aircraft (well, unless it's stealthy or jamming you or something), and no return whatsoever from the sky.  It's then relatively easy to rig some sort of system that points a weapon towards that return.

With a tank it's a little different.  If you point a radar at a tank, the radar wave will bounce off the tank and back towards the radar, but the radar wave will also bounce off the ground and all the random metal crap on the ground and bounce back towards the radar.  The signal is much more complex, and a powerful computer is required to figure out what is tank and what is ground.  The same applies to any sort of sensor system trying to track a ground vehicle.  Sorting out the actual target from the noise is a lot trickier, because the ground produces a lot more sensor noise than the air.

 

But it's 2018, and there are all sorts of crazy powerful computers and signal processing algorithms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Hard, but possible.

Completely automatic fire control systems exist in aircraft and anti-aircraft systems.  The difference is that aircraft are usually silhouetted against the sky.  If you point a radar at an airplane in the sky, you'll get a very clean, crisp return from the aircraft (well, unless it's stealthy or jamming you or something), and no return whatsoever from the sky.  It's then relatively easy to rig some sort of system that points a weapon towards that return.

With a tank it's a little different.  If you point a radar at a tank, the radar wave will bounce off the tank and back towards the radar, but the radar wave will also bounce off the ground and all the random metal crap on the ground and bounce back towards the radar.  The signal is much more complex, and a powerful computer is required to figure out what is tank and what is ground.  The same applies to any sort of sensor system trying to track a ground vehicle.  Sorting out the actual target from the noise is a lot trickier, because the ground produces a lot more sensor noise than the air.

 

But it's 2018, and there are all sorts of crazy powerful computers and signal processing algorithms.  

With the solution I provided above, which is already pursued by numerous armed forces, you don't even need a system for independent identification of targets. You can do with greater view and semi-automatic return fire capability.

 

But if you want something to independently acquire targets, which I think is important as well, the way to go is probably optical devices coupled with the BMS. Movement detection and object recognition will do their thing, and geo-location of that object will blink it on the BMS. The BMS will then decide whether this is a registered friendly asset, or an unregistered and potentially harmful asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

TLDR

Yes, you can remove the gunner completely.

Maybe my thinking is from yesterday, but I wouldn't think a moment about removing the Gunner. With the flood of incoming information in an NCW environment, I'm totally happy with a commander who can focus on processing these informations and taking decissions plus eventually assigning targets. Furthermore I'd love to have a gunner who is able to do his job the traditional way if the sensors got a beating...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jägerlein said:

Maybe my thinking is from yesterday, but I wouldn't think a moment about removing the Gunner. With the flood of incoming information in an NCW environment, I'm totally happy with a commander who can focus on processing these informations and taking decissions plus eventually assigning targets. Furthermore I'd love to have a gunner who is able to do his job the traditional way if the sensors got a beating...

There are technologies available today that can greatly simplify most of the information coming in to the TC in a way that even when assigned with also gunnery, the overall load is reduced.

Location of friends & foes (works on formation coordination and combat orientation), mission assignment, firing tenders, optimal route finding, autonomous (limited or not) driving, semi-autonomous engagement. 

With all these, a commander in a 2-man crew will actually be able to perform his core tasks with LESS burden from other tasks. The only one who gains more burden from this, is the driver who now serves as a secondary gunner as well, as all controls within the vehicle become dual - every station has the same UI.

 

Of course, it will take about a decade before we will see the fruits of that concept, which currently gets massive funding in both Israel and the USA, as well as private companies like BAE and Elbit that are pushing for certain pieces of this concept at least.

And we should see parts of it becoming operational in the next 2-3 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 5:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

It reduces a traditional crew of 3 (commander, gunner, driver) to just 2 (commander and driver), and a crew of 4 (incl. loader) can be reduced to 3 if they choose not to use an automated loader.

 

Who in their right minds would be dumb enough to do that? 

 

Spoiler

Image result for CHallenger 2

 

Oh... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody

2 men crew is a deep failure for tanks whatever the level of technology. 

In france, 3 men crew was considered the best choice but, after 25 years of Leclerc MBT, I know plenty of cavalry men who would be very pleased to have a 4 men crew tank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serge said:

In france, 3 men crew was considered the best choice but, after 25 years of Leclerc MBT, I know plenty of cavalry men who would be very pleased to have a 4 men crew tank. 

BMS burden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Serge said:

Nobody

2 men crew is a deep failure for tanks whatever the level of technology. 

In france, 3 men crew was considered the best choice but, after 25 years of Leclerc MBT, I know plenty of cavalry men who would be very pleased to have a 4 men crew tank. 

If you build a tank the traditional way today, then yeah 4 men is better.

 

But with the setup given to a 2-man crew provides them with a substantially higher level of situational awareness than a 4-man crew.

 

Keep in mind that all running projects for such technology also include a 3rd person for the vehicle who operates unmanned systems around the vehicle, so he's an extra hand during repairs, and an extra pair of eyes through his own platforms, that provides far more added visibility than an extra crewman does on existing tanks.

 

So when talking about 2-man crews, it doesn't mean there are 2 men inside the vehicle. Just that only 2 of them are required to operate the vehicle.

 

Besides, autoloaders are the only way to provide true protection against catastrophic kills, by removing the danger of being struck in the process of loading. Thus the only threats that remain that could cause catastrophic kills are mines/IEDs, and shots that penetrate into the ammo compartment and proceed to pierce into the crew compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By LoooSeR
      Well, we have thread about Yemen conflict and Ukrainian war, so in light of recent changes in situation in Syria, this thread became relevant enough, IMO.
       
       

       

×