Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

BAE ACV1.1 with a 30x113mm and Javelin armed RWS.

 

Protector RWS LW-30:

 

"The PROTECTOR RWS-LW30 is an extension of the existing PROTECTOR RWS Family providing enhanced operational capability by use of a 30mm canon. In additional to the powerful M230LF 30mm canon as a main weapon, the PROTECTOR RWS-LW30 offer modularity for single weapon, dual weapon and even triple weapon configuration where the M230LF main weapon, 7.62mm coax weapon and a Javelin ATM can be installed simultaneously. The versatile system architecture enables support for future integrations such as Stinger missile or other effectors."

 

unJ11bh.png

 

 https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/up-gunning-stryker-and-oshkosh-jltv/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

Protector RWS LW-30:

 

"The PROTECTOR RWS-LW30 is an extension of the existing PROTECTOR RWS Family providing enhanced operational capability by use of a 30mm canon. In additional to the powerful M230LF 30mm canon as a main weapon, the PROTECTOR RWS-LW30 offer modularity for single weapon, dual weapon and even triple weapon configuration where the M230LF main weapon, 7.62mm coax weapon and a Javelin ATM can be installed simultaneously. The versatile system architecture enables support for future integrations such as Stinger missile or other effectors."

 

In this years budget request the Army asked for the money to buy 32 of these.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Nothing new about the STK Terrex for ACV 1.1, or is the USMC leaning more towards the SuperAV derivative?

 

Last I heard was 14 of 16 prototypes had been delivered as of September last year.

 

The USMC is supposed to make its decision in June.

Share this post


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

M2 with Iron Fist schematics. Looks a little unusual. Also a frontal launcher is in the way of commander's panoramic sight.

DBgSF-OXcAEkTOD.jpg

And they still want to go for a mere upgrade of the turret instead of a complete redesign that is long overdue.

 

Because when even the smallest, lightest, and least power consuming APS is at a point where it overburdens the turret and electrical grid, you know it's bad. Now they wanna add a 30mm gun in the same turret even though they tested proper, new turrets on the Brad, and there are now turrets available as MOTS products with integrated APS.

 

Kudos on pushing through a hastened NGCV process but I can't help but think how fucked up the current ECPs are on the 3 core platforms - Abrams, Brad, and Stryker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And they still want to go for a mere upgrade of the turret instead of a complete redesign that is long overdue.

 

Because when even the smallest, lightest, and least power consuming APS is at a point where it overburdens the turret and electrical grid, you know it's bad. Now they wanna add a 30mm gun in the same turret even though they tested proper, new turrets on the Brad, and there are now turrets available as MOTS products with integrated APS.

 

Kudos on pushing through a hastened NGCV process but I can't help but think how fucked up the current ECPs are on the 3 core platforms - Abrams, Brad, and Stryker.

 

A turret redesign doesn’t generate more electricity, and we already discussed the locations of the Iron Fist units.

 

wj57ZgH.jpg

hikPB56.jpg

 

What do you think is wrong with the Abrams and Stryker ECPs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

M2 with Iron Fist schematics. Looks a little unusual. Also a frontal launcher is in the way of commander's panoramic sight.

DBgSF-OXcAEkTOD.jpg

 

Apparently I forgot to post that here back in July, that even looks like the crop I made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A turret redesign doesn’t generate more electricity, and we already discussed the locations of the Iron Fist units.

 

wj57ZgH.jpg

hikPB56.jpg

 

What do you think is wrong with the Abrams and Stryker ECPs?

 

Okay so about the Brad; What I've heard so far is that its current turret is incompatible with the Iron Fist (Let's just call it IF-LC from now on), so they're using an M2A4's turret. What this means? I don't know. Maybe the turret itself consumes less electricity, or maybe it has an improved capacity for electrical appliances. The electricity rant is more directed at the whole Brad, not the turret. That doesn't matter. What matters is that they have this new turret with new features, and somewhere down the pipe they have an A5 turret with a new gun and new stuff. And it's still cramped as hell. They say they only have money to upgrade a turret and not the hull, which is fine. But why not take the opportunity and think of something more long term? 

If they want to change the gun, sensors, and move a few things around, why not take a different MOTS turret, add their stuff, like the IF-LC, gun and whatnot, and at the same time even get rid of a whole bunch of problems. Maybe even change the medium term strategy for an APS.

 

What I'm proposing is to dump the A5 turret outright. 

 

BAE offered the Czech 2 variants of the CV90 Mk4 with 2 different turrets. One of them would be perfect for the Bradley:

Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobkey=id&blo

 

It's a technologically mature product that could be fitted with domestic sensors and electronics.

 

Or if they want to go for a unitary APS for the whole army, they could go for something like this:

 

30mm_turret_725.jpg?resize=696,272

 

It's developmental, but it's already being tested on a number of platforms for the past few months.

The up-side is that they can just forget about the turret for a long while after that.

 

They could even increase the troop capacity along the way by using an unmanned turret.

 

The Abrams' ECP is the least problematic of the bunch. I have only few complaints:

1)Want a better engine? Great. Why not invest in hybrid propulsion even at the risk of slightly delaying the process? An engine procurement is a long term commitment. Especially on MBTs. I'm afraid they would barely hit their midlife point by the time some will already have made the switch. Other than pollution and fuel consumption, I could think of a few advantages such an engine might have. A tank could have a sort of a stealth mode while on the move. It was common to stop the tank, turn off the engine and turn on the APU, and stay cold and hard to detect for heat sensors. With hybrid propulsion you can still do that for a certain while, while moving. And at higher speed. 

2)Focus on incremental upgrades to existing components, rather than seeking new capabilities. An APS is a new capability. Good for them to finally accelerate this, by the way. A see-through-armor technology is a new capability. The UGV operation thing from an MBT, that's one heck of a new capability. An improved thermal sight is not a new capability. 

Don't get me wrong, electronics need frequent upgrades, even without considering their natural degradation. But other than APS, everything I mentioned is either being done too slowly, or not at all. And even the APS program (and I apologize Captain America for my language) seems to me a little half assed. They took the effort to give 2 divisions worth of tanks an APS and went for the most basic version of Trophy? In 2 years from now, the Barak MBT should be operational with a new generation of the Trophy. That means, it should finish a very long and rigorous series of testing by then. That is, if they intend to keep their promise to make a new generation of APS. Why not get to an agreement with the IDF and RAFAEL to export all tests of the system, or replicate them, inside the US?

What they are talking about right now is almost 4 years worth of production starting from the moment the Trophy starts being mass produced. That's 2 years of making an older generation system when a new much more capable one is both produced and rigorously tested. What makes this important for me is the fact that the US prepares for a peer enemy, which means tank vs tank battles are still very much on the table. So that new generation of APS is going to make a difference.

 

The T-14 is a generational leap over whatever Russia made beforehand. It's a generational leap over much of what the west has produced so far as well. And the Abrams' ECP program hasn't really changed since then. It's still very slow to add new capabilities considering the timeline for the NGCV is to produce a fully functional MBT within 17(!) years from now, whereas Russia is this close to finishing state trials on the Armata <---------->. That's short.

 

 

And onto the Stryker - Well that one is the most mysterious to me. The Iron Curtain APS is massive, and weighs more than any other contender, at about 2 tons if I remember correctly. Choosing any of the above mentioned turrets would strike 2 birds with 1 stone - modern, well armed turret, and a light APS that also matches that of another vehicle.

 

It just seems to me that whoever is responsible for the APS program could quite easily just settle for 1 unitary APS for the whole fleet AND get other rather urgent issues fixed at the same time, but chose not to.

 

Okay, that was a serious rant. I'm gonna go chew a rock to feel manly.

 

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Apparently I forgot to post that here back in July, that even looks like the crop I made.

Being Loosered is timeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna break up my reply because you wrote so much :P

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Okay so about the Brad; What I've heard so far is that its current turret is incompatible with the Iron Fist (Let's just call it IF-LC from now on), so they're using an M2A4's turret. What this means? I don't know. Maybe the turret itself consumes less electricity, or maybe it has an improved capacity for electrical appliances. The electricity rant is more directed at the whole Brad, not the turret. 

 

There isn't an issue of the current turret being incompatible with IF-LC, it's that the current Bradley only generates a measly 9 kilowatts of electricity. The A4 (ECP2) upgrade almost triples this to 24 which is why the IF-LC testing has to use A4 components.

 

Quote

That doesn't matter. What matters is that they have this new turret with new features, and somewhere down the pipe they have an A5 turret with a new gun and new stuff. And it's still cramped as hell. They say they only have money to upgrade a turret and not the hull, which is fine. But why not take the opportunity and think of something more long term? 

If they want to change the gun, sensors, and move a few things around, why not take a different MOTS turret, add their stuff, like the IF-LC, gun and whatnot, and at the same time even get rid of a whole bunch of problems. Maybe even change the medium term strategy for an APS.

 

What I'm proposing is to dump the A5 turret outright.

 

? the A5 Bradley will use the same turret as the A3 and A4 Bradley, and the 'official' A5 plan is an upgrade to the thermal sights + adding a RWS.

 

Quote

Or if they want to go for a unitary APS for the whole army,

 

They don't seem to want a unitary APS. The concern seems to be if someone has a counter to one the will have a counter to all.

 

Quote

BAE offered the Czech 2 variants of the CV90 Mk4 with 2 different turrets. One of them would be perfect for the Bradley:

 

It's a technologically mature product that could be fitted with domestic sensors and electronics.

Quote

they could go for something like this:

 

It's developmental, but it's already being tested on a number of platforms for the past few months.

The up-side is that they can just forget about the turret for a long while after that.

 

They could even increase the troop capacity along the way by using an unmanned turret.

 

A CV90 turret would serve no purpose, but an unmanned turret would be a reasonable consideration down the road when the Army doesn't have so many higher priority things to spend money on.

 

As for a potentially multi platform turret, CMI's 3000 series is the one I am aware of being favored.

Share this post


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

The Abrams' ECP is the least problematic of the bunch. I have only few complaints:

1)Want a better engine? Great. Why not invest in hybrid propulsion even at the risk of slightly delaying the process? An engine procurement is a long term commitment. Especially on MBTs. I'm afraid they would barely hit their midlife point by the time some will already have made the switch. Other than pollution and fuel consumption, I could think of a few advantages such an engine might have. A tank could have a sort of a stealth mode while on the move. It was common to stop the tank, turn off the engine and turn on the APU, and stay cold and hard to detect for heat sensors. With hybrid propulsion you can still do that for a certain while, while moving. And at higher speed. 

 

I know Damian likes to talk about that opposed piston development but there are no actual plans on replacing the Abrams engine.

 

Quote

2)Focus on incremental upgrades to existing components, rather than seeking new capabilities. An APS is a new capability. Good for them to finally accelerate this, by the way. A see-through-armor technology is a new capability. The UGV operation thing from an MBT, that's one heck of a new capability. An improved thermal sight is not a new capability. Don't get me wrong, electronics need frequent upgrades, even without considering their natural degradation. But other than APS, everything I mentioned is either being done too slowly, or not at all.

 

? the SEPv3 focuses on incremental upgrades and what's being done with SEPv4 isn't really known yet.

 

Quote

And even the APS program (and I apologize Captain America for my language) seems to me a little half assed. They took the effort to give 2 divisions worth of tanks an APS and went for the most basic version of Trophy?

 

I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. You don't know what version of Trophy has been tested so far and the funding for 4 brigades worth of APS hasn't been spent on a specific system yet.

 

Quote

In 2 years from now, the Barak MBT should be operational with a new generation of the Trophy. That means, it should finish a very long and rigorous series of testing by then. That is, if they intend to keep their promise to make a new generation of APS. Why not get to an agreement with the IDF and RAFAEL to export all tests of the system, or replicate them, inside the US?

What they are talking about right now is almost 4 years worth of production starting from the moment the Trophy starts being mass produced. That's 2 years of making an older generation system when a new much more capable one is both produced and rigorously tested. What makes this important for me is the fact that the US prepares for a peer enemy, which means tank vs tank battles are still very much on the table. So that new generation of APS is going to make a difference.

 

MAPS will make APS plug and play, pick the components you want.

 

Quote

The T-14 is a generational leap over whatever Russia made beforehand. It's a generational leap over much of what the west has produced so far as well. And the Abrams' ECP program hasn't really changed since then. It's still very slow to add new capabilities considering the timeline for the NGCV is to produce a fully functional MBT within 17(!) years from now, whereas Russia is this close to finishing state trials on the Armata <---------->. That's short.

 

In all seriousness I consider the T-14 to be a rival to the current/near future versions of existing Western (and Israeli) MBT's. At this point the NGCV is looking more like a T-15 (heavy IFV) rival.

 

Quote

And onto the Stryker - Well that one is the most mysterious to me. The Iron Curtain APS is massive, and weighs more than any other contender, at about 2 tons if I remember correctly. Choosing any of the above mentioned turrets would strike 2 birds with 1 stone - modern, well armed turret, and a light APS that also matches that of another vehicle.

 

This plays into your debate with MM about Trophy vs ADS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

An Elbit RWS-H on a Stryker.

 

Ug3Qwar.jpg

Where did you get that? I've seen that one years ago in a promotional video of Elbit, but the high quality picture indicates this is a new photo.

 

What's more interesting is that Elbit stopped marketing this turret when the UT30 Mk 2 came out.

Share this post


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

Where did you get that? I've seen that one years ago in a promotional video of Elbit, but the high quality picture indicates this is a new photo.

 

What's more interesting is that Elbit stopped marketing this turret when the UT30 Mk 2 came out.

 

http://www.elbitsystems-us.com/land

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.
×