Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

 

What are the other new features of the M88A3 ?

 

From Jane's:

 

"The demonstrator is an upgraded M88A2 with a seventh road wheel to help alleviate ground pressure and new hydropneumatic suspension units (HSUs) that enable the track to be locked out, Miller said. The M88A2 requires a soldier or marine to exit the vehicle and use objects (typically wood blocks) to lock out the track. The intent is to upgrade existing M88A2s to the A3 configuration.

BAE Systems is recommending that the vehicle's air-cooled engine be replaced with a commercially available, liquid-cooled, 1,300 hp caterpillar diesel engine; its transmission would be replaced with a modified Abrams tanks transmission."

 

So 7th road wheel to reduce ground pressure, new suspension,  track lock out, recommended engine and transmission change.

 

Share this post


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

From Jane's:

 

"The demonstrator is an upgraded M88A2 with a seventh road wheel to help alleviate ground pressure and new hydropneumatic suspension units (HSUs) that enable the track to be locked out, Miller said. The M88A2 requires a soldier or marine to exit the vehicle and use objects (typically wood blocks) to lock out the track. The intent is to upgrade existing M88A2s to the A3 configuration.

BAE Systems is recommending that the vehicle's air-cooled engine be replaced with a commercially available, liquid-cooled, 1,300 hp caterpillar diesel engine; its transmission would be replaced with a modified Abrams tanks transmission."

 

So 7th road wheel to reduce ground pressure, new suspension,  track lock out, recommended engine and transmission change.

 

So can we officially say the Hercules is no longer related to the Magach (or as you non-joo folks say, 'M60')?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While the M1 Abrams tank still has life in it yet, the Army is starting to begin the thinking and planning process for a future tank, “which is really exciting because it might not be a tank,” Coffman said. “It is decisive lethality and what that decisive lethality is will be determined by academia, our science and technology community within the Army and industry.”

 

The Army will choose a path in 2023 on how it plans to replace the Abrams and some of the ideas cropping up in discussions have been “everything from a ray gun to a Star Wars-like four-legged creature that shoots lasers,” Coffman said, “but the reality is that everything is on the table.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/09/the-armys-future-tank-may-not-be-a-tank/

 

Time for a new thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the M2A5 variant of the Bradley was apparently canceled to make funding available for the NGCV program. That means it will stick with a 25 mm Bushmaster I autocannon for the rest of its days.

 

On 10/6/2018 at 4:00 PM, 2805662 said:

The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature  products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. 

 

The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants.  

 

I wouldn't say that the Lynx KF31 properly competed against the Puma and CV90. It was a first test done in a very limited time, not a proper evaluation or trial. It also didn't perform stellar - all vehicles execept the Puma (which was leased from the German army) had reliability issues (each of them had to repeat at least one test, because something relevant to it - i.e. the engine/transmission during mobility trials or the gun/FCS during the firing trials - broke down) and only weren't actually fitted with all electronics and sub-components.

 

As for the KF41 variant, I have to ask you again for your source. Did somebody at Rheinmetall' booth at these events tell you this? Is this hearsay, speculation or an observation? I honestly don't see much reason for complaining about these specific points. The armor might not have been directly tested, but Rheinmetall Chempro is producing AMAP for various German and international fighting vehicles. A very similar looking add-on armor kit was developed for the Swedish CV9040 Evolution (providing better protection than the current CV9040C) and according to R. Lindström was being tested in 2014.

 

CV9040_Evolution_Kit_armoured_infantry_f

 

So even if the exact armor package wasn't tested - which I quite frankly doubt, given that they were willing to put a weight figure onto the Lynx KF41, then the technology behind it is well proven and actually fielded. The armor protection of the Boxer CRV and the AMV-35 btw. wasn't tested on the full vehicles, but selected armor modules were send to Australia for ballistic tests.

 

As for the turret drives, the situation seems to be even more odd, if your claims are correct. Rheinmetall doesn't make turret drives and turret rings by itself, it uses components from other manufacturers. The Lynx family of IFVs is claimed to be making use of as many off-the-shelf components as possible to reduce cost, so it wouldn't actually make sense to use a new turret ring & new drive systems (specifically given that such components could be taken from the LANCE 1.0 turret or the Skyranger turret). I also don't seen any reason why such systems on the electronics' side couldn't be carried over from the LANCE 1.0. I don't have any experience in hand cranking anything that could be described a turret rather than weapon station, but in the marketing video published during Eurosatory, the turret seems to move very smooth. From what I've seen, having the ability to manually turn a turret with electric drive systems is really uncommon.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 3:43 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

Its a really odd partnership. I understand the need for cooperation in the air-defence business, because both companies have a limited product portfolio with gaps, that can be closed with this cooperation. However when it comes to the components that Raytheon could integrate into the Lynx, we see totally overlapping capabilities with Rheinmetall's offers. It is essentially just an option to "americanize" the Lynx: Rheinmetall offers the ADS, Raytheon QuickKill. Rheinmetall has integrated a third generation SAPHIR thermal imager into the opics, Raytheon offers to replace them with an American-made thermal imager. Rheinmetall has integrated the Spike ATGM into the turret (the company is part of the EuroSpike consortium with licence to manufacture the Spike missiles in Europe), but Raytheon offers to replace it with the TOW. Last but not they offer a fire detection system based on optical sensors and microphones, but Rheinmetall's SAS offers the same capabilities when including the acoustic sniper locating system.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 3:45 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

 

So this variant features an independent sight for the commander. If I remember correctly, the first version of the Dragoon lacked such a sight, because the turret was solely operated by the commander. Now that a new sight has been added, does this mean the Stryker A1 Dragoon will feature a dedicated gunner? Will this result in less dismounts being transported per vehicle?

 

17 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

No offense, but the US Army Generals really need to get its shit together. The Ground Combat Vehicle program was based on IFV designs with a projected combat weight between 60 and 70 tons and had the unchangeable requirement to carry nine soldiers in addition to a crew of three. I understand that the requirements were based on different times and operating scenarios, but did the US Army completely forget about Russia when starting the GCV program? Or did they completely forget about their experiences in Iraq when coming up with the NGCV? The GCV was canceled 2014 still at the paper design stage, but the first prototypes should be finished and ready for field tests by 2017. The Lynx KF41 is now at a more advanced state of development than the GCV ever was and suddenly it is questionable that it will be ready for service in eight years? I mean seriously? With the exception of the Puma IFV, how many IFVs need eight years from first prototype to series readiness?

I also don't understand the critique regarding the combat weight. How often would an IFV be used in combat actions against Russia or North Korea without any Abrams MBTs or a South Korean K2/Polish Leopard 2 accompanying it? I mean, it would make more sense if the NGCV's top priority wasn't being able to deal with future Russian vehicles and there wouldn't be a lighter pseudo-IFV in the USAREUR in form of the Dragoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...
Quote

AUSA 2018: Up close with the 50mm super gun (exclusive photos)

While visitors to this week’s AUSA annual meeting and exposition were limited to a glimpse of a 50mm cannon elevated to 85 degrees on the GDLS Griffin 3 demonstrator platform, Shephard can unveil the first images of the breach and loading system for one of four prototype 50mm chain guns currently in development.

Both Northrop Grumman and the US Army's Armament Research and Development Command are developing the 50mm to evaluate an ‘upgunned’ capability for possible integration on future combat platforms.
 

Spoiler

0TAjqAs.jpg

3lYUGux.jpg

LqDdusL.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War Zone just uploaded a series of pictures and an article covering the different items exhibited at AUSA 2018, including two Stryker mockups with the IM-SHORAD and 30/40mm RWS (the interesting part of that mockup was the Trophy VPS addon for the Stryker) turrets, a Bradley with Samson 30 turret, and more.

 

EDIT: it's the right thread this time. Thank God, I was starting to wonder if I had recently contracted the Frank Drebin virus or something.

Share this post


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

 

I wouldn't say that the Lynx KF31 properly competed against the Puma and CV90. It was a first test done in a very limited time, not a proper evaluation or trial. It also didn't perform stellar - all vehicles execept the Puma (which was leased from the German army) had reliability issues (each of them had to repeat at least one test, because something relevant to it - i.e. the engine/transmission during mobility trials or the gun/FCS during the firing trials - broke down) and only weren't actually fitted with all electronics and sub-components.

 

As for the KF41 variant, I have to ask you again for your source. Did somebody at Rheinmetall' booth at these events tell you this? Is this hearsay, speculation or an observation? I honestly don't see much reason for complaining about these specific points. The armor might not have been directly tested, but Rheinmetall Chempro is producing AMAP for various German and international fighting vehicles. A very similar looking add-on armor kit was developed for the Swedish CV9040 Evolution (providing better protection than the current CV9040C) and according to R. Lindström was being tested in 2014.

 

CV9040_Evolution_Kit_armoured_infantry_f

 

So even if the exact armor package wasn't tested - which I quite frankly doubt, given that they were willing to put a weight figure onto the Lynx KF41, then the technology behind it is well proven and actually fielded. The armor protection of the Boxer CRV and the AMV-35 btw. wasn't tested on the full vehicles, but selected armor modules were send to Australia for ballistic tests.

 

As for the turret drives, the situation seems to be even more odd, if your claims are correct. Rheinmetall doesn't make turret drives and turret rings by itself, it uses components from other manufacturers. The Lynx family of IFVs is claimed to be making use of as many off-the-shelf components as possible to reduce cost, so it wouldn't actually make sense to use a new turret ring & new drive systems (specifically given that such components could be taken from the LANCE 1.0 turret or the Skyranger turret). I also don't seen any reason why such systems on the electronics' side couldn't be carried over from the LANCE 1.0. I don't have any experience in hand cranking anything that could be described a turret rather than weapon station, but in the marketing video published during Eurosatory, the turret seems to move very smooth. From what I've seen, having the ability to manually turn a turret with electric drive systems is really uncommon.

 

 

You asked me for my reasons - which I’ve given - not for any sources. If you find my reasons wanting, fine, however, I have answered the question you asked. Nothing I discuss in the public domain is derived from anything other than observation, experience, and analysis. 

 

The Boxer is an in-service vehicle, that has been subjected to the full range of reliability and user testing by a number of countries, and selected by those outside of the countries that funded the development, which adds to the credibility of the vehicle, in my opinion. The KF41 is not. That is not to say that it’ll get there, but (looking at Land 400-3, in this case), Rheinmetall will need every second of the 36 months (IIRC) to RMA to get that vehicle mature enough for user testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 7:43 PM, Belesarius said:

From Jane's:

 

BAE Systems is recommending that the vehicle's air-cooled engine be replaced with a commercially available, liquid-cooled, 1,300 hp caterpillar diesel engine; its transmission would be replaced with a modified Abrams tanks transmission."

 

 

 Why not upgrade its AVDS-1790-8CR engine (1050 hp) to the AVDS-1790-9A standard (1200 hp) ?

Or even better, the AVDS-1790-10 (1500 hp), if it's possible.

Share this post


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

 

 Why not upgrade its AVDS-1790-8CR engine (1050 hp) to the AVDS-1790-9A standard (1200 hp) ?

Or even better, the AVDS-1790-10 (1500 hp), if it's possible.

Their engines are at this point old as shit. So a proper upgrade would basically involve new engines, not upgrading the existing ones. While @Walter_Sobchak is the resident AVDS-1790 expert, and I bow to his knowledge, from what I remember there are quite a few differences, to the point where existing spare parts stocks may not be useful. Also when you upgrade the power output that much you need a new transmission, and at that point just get a new powerpack which isn't constrained by being a re-re-re-hashed 50s design (though it was a very good 50s design)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently both Stykers - A1 30mm and other one with MCAS turret - were displayed at AUSA with their ramps open, so visitors coud've seen what's inside
but for some reason it's rather hard to find photos with rear-ends of those vehicles, let alone (proper) photos of their interriors
PnRQwMv.jpg


nl3oBQv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, skylancer-3441 said:

Apparently both Stykers - A1 30mm and other one with MCAS turret - were displayed at AUSA with their ramps open, so visitors coud've seen what's inside
but for some reason it's rather hard to find photos with rear-ends of those vehicles, let alone (proper) photos of their interriors
PnRQwMv.jpg


nl3oBQv.jpg

 

Its considered bad form to photograph interiors or undersides without permission. Booth staff will happily chat to and show you around/inside the vehicles if they don’t have a scheduled meeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Their engines are at this point old as shit. So a proper upgrade would basically involve new engines, not upgrading the existing ones. While @Walter_Sobchak is the resident AVDS-1790 expert, and I bow to his knowledge, from what I remember there are quite a few differences, to the point where existing spare parts stocks may not be useful. Also when you upgrade the power output that much you need a new transmission, and at that point just get a new powerpack which isn't constrained by being a re-re-re-hashed 50s design (though it was a very good 50s design)

 

Ah, but the AVDS-1790 isn't a 50s design. It's a 40s design, they were first tested in 46 (in their original gasoline form as AV1790). With that said, the advantages of a newer engine do probably outweigh that of updating the AVDS... they almost certainly have lower maintenance requirements, better fuel economy, and other such niceties. I'm also disappointed if not surprised in using the X1100 transmission, even though it really isn't that great - if they want to stick with Allison the newer 5043 MXH covers the same power ratings, more compact, lighter, and better performing.

 

This is also a good time to bring up that not putting the Abrams ARV into production and continuing on with the M88 to save money in the short term was a mistake. (And this addendum is unrelated: but boo Caterpillar, go Cummins!)

Share this post


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

The War Zone just uploaded a series of pictures and an article covering the different items exhibited at AUSA 2018, including two Stryker mockups with the IM-SHORAD and 30/40mm RWS (the interesting part of that mockup was the Trophy VPS addon for the Stryker) turrets, a Bradley with Samson 30 turret, and more.

 

EDIT: it's the right thread this time. Thank God, I was starting to wonder if I had recently contracted the Frank Drebin virus or something.

 

Both the SHORAD and 30mm turrets on those models are RIwP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/10/2018 at 12:13 PM, SH_MM said:

No offense, but the US Army Generals really need to get its shit together. The Ground Combat Vehicle program was based on IFV designs with a projected combat weight between 60 and 70 tons and had the unchangeable requirement to carry nine soldiers in addition to a crew of three. I understand that the requirements were based on different times and operating scenarios, but did the US Army completely forget about Russia when starting the GCV program? Or did they completely forget about their experiences in Iraq when coming up with the NGCV? The GCV was canceled 2014 still at the paper design stage, but the first prototypes should be finished and ready for field tests by 2017.

Nothing new. This is classic because there is plenty of fashion to counter during military programs. And the very lesson learned of wars are not absorbed very quickly. 

The 2018 trends is not so bad. Costly but not so bad. 

 

On 10/10/2018 at 12:13 PM, SH_MM said:

The Lynx KF41 is now at a more advanced state of development than the GCV ever was and suddenly it is questionable that it will be ready for service in eight years? I mean seriously?

KF41 is at an advanced state because it’s a basic chassis using proven components to move heavy load. 

There is no breakthrough with KF41. But, how does it perform facing CV90 or ASCOD-2 in mobility ?

 

On 10/10/2018 at 12:13 PM, SH_MM said:

With the exception of the Puma IFV, how many IFVs need eight years from first prototype to series readiness?

I also don't understand the critique regarding the combat weight. How often would an IFV be used in combat actions against Russia or North Korea without any Abrams MBTs or a South Korean K2/Polish Leopard 2 accompanying it? I mean, it would make more sense if the NGCV's top priority wasn't being able to deal with future Russian vehicles and there wouldn't be a lighter pseudo-IFV in the USAREUR in form of the Dragoon.

MBT are compulsory but having lighter AFV in your whole fleet gives you an advantage. 

Having 15% of your fleet at 75t and  35% at 40t is very different from 50% at 70t. This is why they want to split. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+85? Why? also 50mm and ER TOW so 148 shots and 2 TOW to get to the 150 stowed kills?
And dont they think 1-2 30mm shots are enough for 1 kill? are Stowed kills for Tanks or for Infantry targets too?

 

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.
×