Serge Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 Sometimes, there’s talk about the ultimate recon platform. So, an old proposal from Bacon and Sharony during FSCS program : http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1999.jf/1fscs99.pdf and, this is not an Ajax nor a Boxer like solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Renegade334 said: Isn't that the CATTB? The turret has more vertical lines than a normal M1/M1A1 May be its test bed on basis of the old M1 tturret. Or it can be layout of the new turret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Serge said: Sometimes, there’s talk about the ultimate recon platform. So, an old proposal from Bacon and Sharony during FSCS program : http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1999.jf/1fscs99.pdf and, this is not an Ajax nor a Boxer like solution. It's not very economical, or logistically wise to make a dedicated platform for recon role, especially considering the low number of recon vehicle relative to IFVs and MBTs. But they do add a radar and mast-mounted sensors to the vehicle, which I believe is a must. I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle. I have already expressed my shock about the Aussie Boxer CRV not having either of these, and I am now pondering about whether to write a strongly worded letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: It's not very economical, or logistically wise to make a dedicated platform for recon role, especially considering the low number of recon vehicle relative to IFVs and MBTs. The platform is nothing more than a chassis. So it’s possible to develop a full family of AFV (starting with an ARV). Look at the BAE MPF proposal. I’m sure one can design ARV, a light APC. Nothing complexe. Look at the Ofek. It’s a former Merkava Mk2. Look at the Turk Kaplan.... Quote But they do add a radar and mast-mounted sensors to the vehicle, which I believe is a must. I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle. Yes. When I sarted, recon was only relying on observation to detect. For more than 20 years, a new concept has been completing recon : ISTAR. This FSCS is a real ISTAR and can the kind of concept you were calling for on your blog. Look at the Lancer of the TRACER program : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZloyKrolik Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 21 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said: M.I.L.E.S, specifically the thing that flashes when you die. Fuck M.I.L.E.S. no seriously FUCK M.I.L.E.S. Glad to see the M.I.L.E.S. is still appreciated and liked by the end users. I hated it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Karamazov said: May be its test bed on basis of the old M1 tturret. Or it can be layout of the new turret. I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't). Edited August 23, 2018 by Renegade334 I stand corrected - the CATTB still had two topside hatches. Karamazov 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Renegade334 said: I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. Yes you are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That’s Suspicious Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Renegade334 said: I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't). Is there anything on the performance of the 140mm gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 Mmmm...I don't have any DTIC docs on the XM291 and its performance; Ogorkiewicz did however give a couple stats for 140mm smoothbore guns in his book Tanks - A 100 Years of Evolution: Quote In keeping with the developments in other countries, K+W Thun had also developed a 140mm smooth bore tank gun. This was installed in a Leopard 2, from which it was fired for the first time in 1989, and its APFSDS projectiles proved capable of penetrating about 1,000mm of steel armour. But, like that of the other 140mm guns, its development was not pursued beyond trials. And: Quote A general use of automatic loading systems would have followed if the studies begun in 1982 had led to the adoption of 140mm guns as successors of the 120mm guns because their ammunition was far too large and too heavy to handle, a typical round weighing 38kg and being 1.5m long overall. Guns of 140mm were the subject of an agreement reached in 1988 between Britain, France, Germany and the United States about an interoperable tank gun, or Future Tank Main Armament (FTMA), and prototypes of such a gun were built and fired by 1992. The muzzle energy of their APFSDS projectile reached 23 MJ, or almost twice the muzzle energy of the most powerful of the projectiles of the 120mm guns, but as the Soviet threat receded the development of the FTMA was abandoned. What its performance might have been is indicated by a 140mm smooth bore gun that was built in Switzerland and that in 1999 perforated 1,000mm of armour firing APFSDS projectiles with a 900mm long penetrator. And then there was a short comparison with 120mm ETC gun performance: Quote However, even though 120mm ETC guns were considered capable of firing projectiles with a muzzle energy of 15 MJ, their performance still fell short of that of 140mm solid propellant guns, which could fire projectiles with an energy of 18 to 23 MJ and at the same time enjoyed the advantages of being based on well proven technology. I tried retracing Ogorkiewicz' sources but my google-fu proved neurasthenic today. The only thing I was able to fish in a short amount of time was this study by Lanz (yes, that Lanz) that does give some 140mm stats: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/lakowski.2006-09/Penetration_Limits_of_Conventional_Large_Caliber_Anti_Tank_-_Kinetic_Energy_Projectiles.pdf Anyway, I think this conversation would find a better home in the Ballistics Science Discusion section instead, where more competent people (Bronezhilet, for one) than me could bring you better answers. That’s Suspicious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That’s Suspicious Posted August 24, 2018 Report Share Posted August 24, 2018 Awesome. Thanks for sharing. I would say that’s pretty impressive but from what I recall Russia found similar results in their 152mm weapon tests and with recent Vacuum-1/2 testing. Does anyone know what was been done with the CATTB pilot that was seen on the train? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted August 24, 2018 Report Share Posted August 24, 2018 Data on CATTB tests is sparse. We know it has been used to test the 140mm ATACS gun with XM91 autoloader and the AIPS diesel. I once did some dumpster diving in DTIC and found this: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 Title: Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Appropriation. Supporting Data FY 1994, Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress, April 1993 The title and content imply the CATTB was still being tested in 1993, with projected testing for 1994, despite rumors that it was canned before then. P.246 (AKA p.261 in PDF reader): Quote (U) FY (Fiscal Year) 1992 Accomplishments . (U) Demonstrated Advanced Integrated Propulsion System in CATTB . (U) Conducted CATTB automotive and signature management demonstrations . (U) Conducted CATTB Chassis system integration laboratory demonstration (U) FY 1993 Planned Program: . (U) Support AIPS diesel testing in the CATTB and provide/test propulsion upgrades The AIPS in question is the XAP-1000 diesel engine. P.247 (AKA p.262 in PDF reader): Quote (U) FY (Fiscal Year) 1992 Accomplishments . (U) Demonstrated diesel Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) in CATTB . (U) Began additional modifications to the propulsion system to support 270 volt vehicle And that's it...unless "CATTB" suddenly became an umbrella term that can be applied to any chassis or type of vehicle and not just that particular M1 variant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 I’ve understood the AAV-SU upgrade program is now cancelled. Am-I right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Serge said: I’ve understood the AAV-SU upgrade program is now cancelled. Am-I right ? I've seen that rumor going around but nothing to substantiate it yet. If so that is a really bad indicator for SAIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Yes. As you may know, I found it with Solomon’s blog. They have lost ACV, now AAV-SU ? They keep the NGAFV on track for MPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 If they lost AAV-SU as well then whatever chance they had at winning the MPF selection went with it. This years AUSA will hopefully have an update. Edit: A report linked in Solomon's comments. They basically ended up being way too expensive. Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/08/29/army-to-bring-new-vehicle-protection-technologies-to-fleet-as-early-as-2020/ Reiterating what was previously said: Seeking tech for anti-KE APS. Interested in signature management tech, currently mature enough for production. Developing reactive armor tiles for AMPV and other vehicles after that, probably not NIH (previously customers of Rafael). Looking at developmental systems for the future (NGCV). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Signature management tech meaning Saab camo and/or ROSY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 Iron Fist on an AMPV. I like the hull option a lot more than trying to squeeze it on the Bradley's turret. Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 Bow down before Glorious Trophy. Resistance is futile! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 2 hours ago, LoooSeR said: Bow before Glorious Trophy. Resistance is futile! Bow? What you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Karamazov said: Bow? What you mean? Was typing too fast Karamazov 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 On 8/23/2018 at 7:58 AM, Mighty_Zuk said: I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle. I have already expressed my shock about the Aussie Boxer CRV not having either of these, and I am now pondering about whether to write a strongly worded letter. Who says the BoxerCRV doesn’t have a mast with a sensor package? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 16 hours ago, Serge said: Yes. As you may know, I found it with Solomon’s blog. They have lost ACV, now AAV-SU ? They keep the NGAFV on track for MPF. If this anecdote is legit. SNAFU, the reports on the AAV-SU are genuinely correct. Their has been a 90 Day stop work. Which is not surprising this new (force protection) management has dicked everything up. All AAV SMEs have quit the project or left the company, most took a pay cut and were replaced by SUB CONTRACTORS AS LEADS. This being said they all left. These vehicles are being built by subpar integrators. SAIC has built and delivered 1 vehicle in the time it took a team of AAV techs to deliver 10. The whole ON TIME ON BUDGET concept is wrong. This new AAV-SU project has been swamped by Management with PMPs and all the credentials you could ask for, but it has regressed since the SMEs have left. This is why SAIC cannot hang with the big boys, incompetency and a good ole boy network will kill a project in heart beat. These clowns that are in charge couldn’t build two vehicles alike “hence” FORCE PROTECTION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, 2805662 said: Who says the BoxerCRV doesn’t have a mast with a sensor package? If I could meet you in person I would def stare sharply at you. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 Also, does anyone have any picture of an M1 Abrams (any variant) alongside an M113 Gavin? Preferably but not necessarily a frontal shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.