Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

Strykers lasers aps... That's what i heard.

 

Personally i consider APS important and the other two varying degrees of meh, but my understanding is that the ARMY has a different feeling on all this and considers all three pretty important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess also my confusion is that we are not experiencing a colonel shortage near as i can tell, so I'm thinking why give one colonel all that stuff.

 

Share the love, spread the wealth!

 

Either that or basically this means that all the upgrade talk is rearranging deck chairs and nothing's gonna get actually accomplished any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roguetechie said:

Strykers lasers aps... That's what i heard.

 

Personally i consider APS important and the other two varying degrees of meh, but my understanding is that the ARMY has a different feeling on all this and considers all three pretty important.

 

IIRC Adam Aberle is the guy running the laser show for the US Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVH A1 made me want to revisit an old post of mine about Stryker weight and suspension.

 

-Flat bottom hull (FBH) Strykers have the "3.5" suspension, but can be upgraded to "5.5"

-Double V hull (DVH)  Strykers have the "5.5" suspension and are upgraded to "6.0" suspension in the A1 model

-"3.5" suspension has a 42,000 pound rating

-"5.5" suspension has a 55,000 pound rating

-"6.0" suspension has a 60,000 or 63,000 pound rating depending on the source

-According to the General Dynamics spokesman in the video below the heaviest Stryker variant is 53,000 pounds

 

https://www.army.mil/article/103361/Stryker_ECP_program_receives_approval_to_move_forward

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/M1126.html

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2016/armament/Toepfer.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a501145.pdf

 


I haven't been able to find out if FBH Strykers are being upgraded to "5.5" suspension as a standard or if it is just Dragoons receiving it. I suspect the M1128 has since it's weight issues seem to have been resolved.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


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

Ramlaen, I always liked you. You were known to me as an exceptionally tidy man of well sourced and sound information.

Don't defile and corrupt us and this thread with your imperialistic units of measurement.

For a second I got scared about what you were going to say.

 

But I agree. Why do Americans use the IMPERIAL unit system? I thought you didn't like the Brits.

Share this post


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

Ramlaen, I always liked you. You were known to me as an exceptionally tidy man of well sourced and sound information.

Don't defile and corrupt us and this thread with your imperialistic units of measurement.

 

The smart ass answer is that I will stop using American units of measure in a thread about American vehicles when I see people from another country walking on the Moon.

 

The scholarly answer is that I am using the units that are used in the citations.

Share this post


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

Then the problem is deeper than I thought.

Sorry Ramlaen my dear boy, but Go Team North Korea!

 

-Stryker suspensions are rated for 19,  25 and 29 metric tons

-Strykers weight is between 17 and 24 metric tons depending on variant (without uparmoring).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the "robotic wingman" demonstration happened last month.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/08/25/us-army-tackles-teaming-robots-and-ground-forces-on-battlefield/

Quote

The second demonstration ― the Abrams Lethality Enabler ― was designed to show what can be done if the weapons loader in an Abrams tank is freed up to control ground robots. The concept incorporates an Abrams compact autoloader in order to allow the loader to focus on other tasks.

 

In the second scenario, the MRZR continues its reconnaissance, identifying enemy locations. An Abrams section is sitting in a concealed position while an 81mm automated direct/indirect mortar suppresses the enemy with firepower while another semiautonomous vehicle ― the M58 smoke generator called Wolf ― moves out into a position where it can conceal the Abrams section in order for it to move into a more advantageous location for firing on the enemy.

The Wolf system deploys heavy smoke and the Abrams section moves up a hill and behind a treeline to get into position. One of the tanks concealed by trees fires on the enemy, taking out the target.

Throughout the two demonstrations, the robotic systems were commanded using a common controller.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o9zryza.jpg

 

http://gd.com/news/press-releases/2017/09/general-dynamics-receives-contracts-upgrade-abrams-main-battle-tanks

Quote

General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), recently received two contract awards from the U.S. Army for Abrams main battle tank upgrades, which will boost the platform’s capabilities and help the Army lead the way into the future.


The company will design, develop and integrate multiple engineering changes into the Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (SEPv3), creating a SEPv4 and further modernizing the tanks. Abrams main battle tanks are produced at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.

The first contract is for SEPv4 upgrades, which include the Commander’s Primary Sight (formerly known as the Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer), an improved Gunner’s Primary Sight and enhancements to sensors, lethality and survivability. General Dynamics Land Systems will deliver seven prototype M1A2 SEPv4 tanks to the Army. The contract has an initial value of $311 million. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Mich.; Lima; Scranton, Pa.; and Tallahassee, Fla.

 

 

It hasn't been explicitly stated yet but at this point it is clear that SEPv3 is ECP 1a and SEPv4 is ECP 1b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate paywalls.

 

The Army has postponed a decision to purchase the Trophy active protection system for the Abrams tank, Inside the Army has learned. During an Aug. 25 meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council, senior leaders concluded the effects of the system on the tank, particularly on the performance of the Abrams turret, require further testing. The purchase decision was expected to be made at the AROC meeting. "The results of the live-fire testing have been very positive," Lt. Gen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

The Army has postponed a decision to purchase the Trophy active protection system for the Abrams tank, Inside the Army has learned.

During an Aug. 25 meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council, senior leaders concluded the effects of the system on the tank, particularly on the performance of the Abrams turret, require further testing. The purchase decision was expected to be made at the AROC meeting.

"The results of the live-fire testing have been very positive," Lt. Gen. Mike Murray, the service's deputy chief of staff (G-8), told ITA Sept. 6. "Everybody is convinced this is the capability that we want; we just have to overcome the impacts."

The Army has to "make sure we fully understand the problems" that come with installing a nondevelopmental APS on an existing vehicle platform, he said. While the Israeli Defense Forces' Merkava tank "was built with Trophy in mind to be integrated onto the platform," Murray said, the U.S. Army "just installed it" on the Abrams. "So we have some weight-balance issues we've got to work through, and may have to play with placement."

He emphasized that "nobody is walking away from Trophy." However, "we want to make sure we fully understand that the problems we have identified are fixable before we commit to a procurement decision."

Maj. Gen. David Bassett, PEO GCS, last month alluded to some of the challenges encountered in the "installation and characterization" effort. "Turret balance and the performance of the turret is really important to us," he said. "We've done some initial testing so that we understand what impact that had on the turret itself, and I think we're just in the early phase of figuring out what we might be able to do to mitigate it. It's as much about balance as it is weight."

Prior testing of Trophy, which involved a stationary tank, revealed "some impacts on the performance of the turret," Murray said. He declined to elaborate further.

Forthcoming tests "would involve some actual crews running some actual engagement scenarios -- moving tank, stationary tank, et cetera," he said. The testing will include participation from the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Army Test and Evaluation Command, the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems and Army Forces Command.

The goal is to have the testing complete and results synthesized "within 30 days" of the AROC, Murray said.

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has prioritized the need to boost the survivability and lethality of maneuver forces in Europe in the wake of Russian adventurism on the continent. The service aims to devote more than $1 billionin European Deterrence Initiative funding, via the Defense Department’s Overseas Contingency Operations account, to upgrading combat vehicles in Europe.

At present, the plan is to procure a brigade set of Trophy APS using EDI funding, Murray said, "and then we'll have to go back to the chief and make a decision about how many more we go with."

Representatives from General Dynamics Land Systems, the maker of the Abrams, and DRS Technologies, which has partnered with Israel's Rafael to bring Trophy to the United States, have discussed their efforts in separate interviews with ITA.

Don Kotchman, vice president of tracked combat vehicles at GDLS, said Aug. 28 the company "worked in close partnership with [the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center], and the program office to support the design for installation of the Trophy kit onto the tank. And then the development of the installation kitting . . . so the system could be attached."

Additionally, he said GDLS conducted a "parallel" effort using independent research and development funds to incorporate an "ability to use the data from the sensors associated with Trophy to give the vehicle commander improved situational awareness."

Michael O’Leary, director of survivability and lethality for DRS Land Systems, said Aug. 25 the NDI effort has "migrated in a lot of people's minds from a focus on the capabilities of the system to a refocus on the true challenges of how you integrate a capability like this on a platform that already exists.

"It's a totally different story if you're incorporating and integrating this on a clean-sheet design -- much easier process. But on a platform like an Abrams, where it's already had multiple technologies and add-on capabilities -- armor, sensors, equipment -- just trying to find the right places for the system's components, such that it can see all around the vehicle, such that the countermeasures can fire all around the vehicle and protect the entire platform, 360 degrees. Those are challenges."

Citing a "consensus of opinion" that APS improves the survivability of a platform, O'Leary said, "if you take away or you degrade the tactical capability of the platform in the process, then you don't get a whole lot of supporters."

Those challenges are "not insurmountable," and many have already been addressed, he maintained. The corollary, however, is to assess how "any changes you've made affect cost, schedule and performance."

 

 

EDIT: I master the art of "hax".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PENTAGON GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INSTALL ISRAELI Trophy APS ON U.S Abrams TANKS

BY ANNA AHRONHEIM

OCTOBER 2, 2017 01:43

The estimated cost per tank is $350,000.
2 minute read.
[IMG]


A US M1 Abrams tank fires during the "Saber Strike" NATO military exercise in Adazi, Latvia, June 11, 2016.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

The US Army has approved the installation of Israel’s Trophy active-protection system on a number of its M1A2 Abrams tanks, making it the first army aside from the IDF to use the system.

The Pentagon said Thursday the decision was made following “an urgent material” request.


Designed to detect and neutralize incoming projectiles, the Trophy system has four radar antennae and fire-control radars to track incoming threats such as anti-tank guided missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Once a projectile is detected, Trophy fires a shotgun-type blast to neutralize the threat.

Developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta Group, it is the only fully operational and combat-proven APS in the world.

Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems was contracted to add the system to an Armor Brigade Combat Team’s M1A2 SEPv2 at a cost of close to $10 million with an expected completion date by the end of March 2019.

The estimated cost per tank is $350,000.

With its troops operating in theaters such as Syria and Iraq, the US has understood that ground forces and armored vehicles are sitting ducks without active protection systems due to the proliferation of antitank weaponry in the hands of both state militaries and insurgent groups. Outside the Middle East, pro-Russian rebels in the Ukraine have been reported to be using Russian-made Kornet missiles, which can strike targets more than five kilometers away using a laser beam to direct the missile and which can pierce standard armor 1,000–1,200 millimeters thick.

Maj.-Gen. David Bassett, who is in charge of the US Army’s programs in the area of ground combat systems, was quoted by the DefenseTech website in August as ultimately envisioning “a brigade’s worth of capability of Trophy on the Abrams” – one of the most heavily armored vehicles in existence.

The Trophy has been installed on Israel’s Merkava tanks since 2009, and also has been installed on the IDF’s Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle and new armored personnel carrier, the Eitan, which is set to enter operational use for infantry battalions in the coming year.

The Trophy System received its “baptism by fire” on March 1, 2011, when it neutralized an RPG antitank rocket fired from a short range toward an IDF Merkava Mark-IV tank close to the Gaza border.

The system has since proved its efficacy in several operations, especially during Operation Protective Edge when IDF tanks operated in the Gaza Strip without suffering any losses.

Rafael declined to comment on the report.


http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pe...all-Israeli-defense-system-on-US-tanks-506474

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any other tank, besides the M3 Lee & M4 Sherman, that used multiple different engines?  And that all the engine types worked?

 

Look at the Sherman: M4 & M4A1 had the R975, the M4A2 had the GM 6046 diesel, M4A3 had the Ford GAA, & the M4A4 the Chrysler A57. And they all worked!

Edited by ZloyKrolik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ZloyKrolik said:

Is there any other tank, besides the M3 Lee & M4 Sherman, that used multiple different engines?  And that all the engine types worked?

 

Look at the Sherman: M4 & M4A1 had the R975, the M4A2 had the GM 6046 diesel, M4A3 had the Ford GAA, & the M4A4 the Chrysler A57. And they all worked!

 

The M48 and M103 were dieselized late in their service life, and that made a pretty substantial difference to their range.  Export/upgrade versions of the Challenger 2 and Leclerc have German MTU engines as an option instead of the original goofy British or goofy French engines respectively.  Some early T-34s had petrol engines due to shortages of the diesels.  But off the top of my head, no, I can't think of any other tank than the M3/M4 that was designed to accommodate engines with such widely different cylinder configurations.

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 Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×