Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/07/05/abrams-tanks-get-new-round-of-israeli-made-shields-to-fend-off-anti-tank-weapons/

 

Not really sure if they're revealing anything new here. You guys be the judges.

But they have a mistake there that recently repeated itself. There are no 1000 APS systems on Israeli AFVs.

There is a contract, til 2027 (i.e no less than 9 years from now) for the supply of 1000 systems. It's unknown whether these include the systems that have been mounted since 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cloudy future for Iron Curtain APS on US Army Strykers

Spoiler

The fate of Artis' Iron Curtain active protection system (APS) continues to hang in the balance while the US Army  decides if it wants to move forward with equipping its Strykers with the capability.

 

Army leaders recently wrapped up testing the company's APS on Stryker vehicles under the Expedited Active Protection Systems (ExAPS) phase of the initiative. What happens next, though, is a big question mark. 

 

'We are currently awaiting an army decision on the next phase of activity for Iron Curtain,' Ashley John, the director of public affairs for the service's Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems, wrote in a email to Shephard. 

 

Artis did not respond to comment. 

 

The service has been testing three systems to shoot down incoming rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided weapons — Iron Curtain on its Strykers, IMI Systems’ Iron Fist system on the M2 Bradley and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems' Trophy on Abrams.

 

Service plans for the Iron Fist system are also not clear. As of 28 June, the system was still undergoing live fire characterisation under Phase I ExAPS, according to the service. 

 

Contributing to the confusion is a push by lawmakers to evaluate additional APS systems. In the FY2018 omnibus spending bill, Congress allocated $25 million in additional APS funds. 

The move could circumvent what's known as an earmark ban by not specifying a specific company, instead it forces the service to consider a range of options such as a solution from German company ADS, part of the Rheinmetall Group.

 

Adhering to lawmakers, in April the service posted a Request for Information (RFI) calling for new, non-developmental APS before holding an industry day on 17 May at the Army Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan.

 

John said the 'process is ongoing' but 'specific vendors have not yet been selected'.

 

'We have opened the participation opportunities up to multiple vendors who will be asked to provide a preliminary demonstration of their system, after which one or more will be asked to conduct the full Phase I installation and characterisation that we have performed or are performing on the Rafael, Artis, and IMI solutions,' John wrote.

 

While question marks over Stryker and Bradley APS plans persist, the army strategy for its family of Abrams tanks is solidifying. Under a $193 million deal, Leonardo will begin integrating Trophy onto the platform.

 

When asked if the service was considering Trophy for either Stryker or Bradley vehicles, the service dodged a direct answer.

 

'At this time we are committed to Trophy for Abrams,' John wrote. 'Urgent solution options for Stryker or Bradley will be determined once army decisions are made on the current solutions under evaluation.'

 

Bradley gets stereo vision system

Spoiler

The US Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), working with Honeywell Aerospace, has installed a prototype helmet‐mounted stereo vision system into a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the US Army announced on 2 July.

The prototype system was originally developed under DARPA’s Ground X Vehicle Technologies (GXV‐T) programme.

In its current configuration, the Bradley vehicle can only be driven closed‐hatched with the driver looking through mirrored sights with a limited field of view, in order to protect the crew.

TARDEC’s Mission Enabling Technologies‐Demonstrator team added the Honeywell Aerospace technology to the Bradley's existing suite of 360° situational awareness sensors. The system includes a wide range of forward facing stereo camera pairs whose imagery is projected into the left and right eye of the user through a pair of holographic optical elements. This allows the user to perceive depth while showing a wide field of regard without causing nausea or eye strain.

 

Additional standard and fish‐eye lens cameras provide complimentary views of the vehicle’s perimeter position and mid‐range detection.

The installation is intended to demonstrate a proof‐of‐concept for closed‐hatch driving using high resolution stereo vision combined with advanced head tracking technology integrated into a helmet mounted display.

 

Share this post


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

Uhm, shouldnt there be a hole in the roof?

 

Perspective.

 

On 12/2/2017 at 6:12 PM, Ramlaen said:

AMPV mortar carrier being tested at Yuma.

 

original.jpg

 

Share this post


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

Aren't these photos from last year? I remember seeing them somewhere.

 

They’re mine from AUSA 17. The prediction was from the reps on the stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I'd be really curious to know who designed that hydro suspension unit.  

xVbRaeQ.jpg

 

Says “Horstman” on the stand. 

 

There was a unit from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know why HSU (Hydro Pneumatic Suspension) isn't a bigger hit than it is now.

I believe every tank design bureau in the world has at least toyed with the idea.

 

Gun depression is something we mostly hear about in games, but in real life it's still a very important aspect of the tank's firepower. Shame it took until now with the Abrams, and the absence of announced plans for the Merkava and Leopard are worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

There was a unit from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2016. 

Yes. 

It was shown on the BAE booth as a solution for Bradley upgrade. 

Share this post


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

I really don't know why HSU (Hydro Pneumatic Suspension) isn't a bigger hit than it is now.

I believe every tank design bureau in the world has at least toyed with the idea.

 

Gun depression is something we mostly hear about in games, but in real life it's still a very important aspect of the tank's firepower. Shame it took until now with the Abrams, and the absence of announced plans for the Merkava and Leopard are worrying.

 

It's been on the market forever.  Back in the 19790's, Teledyne Continental had a hydro suspension unit they tried marketing as part of the "Super M60" program.  I think this system is still available from L-3 Combat Propulsions, the current owner of the old Teledyne tank engine plant.  General Dynamics owned it for a while, so I was wondering if they were marketing the old system now owned by L-3 or something from someone else.  https://www2.l3t.com/cps/cps/Suspensions.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

xVbRaeQ.jpg

 

Says “Horstman” on the stand. 

 

There was a unit from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2016. 

 

Hostman made the hydrogas suspensions for Challenger.  Did they license this from Mitsubishi then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horstman InArm:
https://horstmangroup.com/horstman-products/horstman-inarm/

Used on Puma and many in-development/prototype AFVs.
 

On 7/10/2018 at 8:38 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

It's been on the market forever.  Back in the 19790's, Teledyne Continental had a hydro suspension unit they tried marketing as part of the "Super M60" program.  I think this system is still available from L-3 Combat Propulsions, the current owner of the old Teledyne tank engine plant.  General Dynamics owned it for a while, so I was wondering if they were marketing the old system now owned by L-3 or something from someone else.  https://www2.l3t.com/cps/cps/Suspensions.htm


Related?
http://www.horstmaninc.com/news/horstman-acquires-l-3-communications-electronic-systems-suspension-unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the proposed re-engining of the Abrams with the Crusader engine involved replacement of the torsion bar suspension in the last two stations with some form of HSU due to engine height. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 8:57 PM, Ramlaen said:

A pair of interesting photographs posted by Damian from @Walter_Sobchak's blog, not (just) because they show an Abrams testing hydropneumatic suspension but because they appear to show the glacis is thicker than it is around the driver's hatch.

 

PlHsWZ7.jpg

OF2QJra.jpg

What year?

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.
×