Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

I wonder if the NGCV will actually get a full buy, since they definitely had something more revolutionary/transformational in mind, but couldn't make it work in the timeframe because of all the other failed acquisitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

You sure about that? According to that Army chart it's called the "1M2A4" - I'm not sure I even trust them to manage the Bradley.

 

(But that chart is a comedy of goofs - at least one typo, magical 100mm Kornets, not bothering to account in potential ammunition advances for guns, no counting of protection at all, magic 8-balling the optics on T-15, really confusing TOW nomenclature...)

 

 

100% positive call me cynical lol.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aJrK7vmIr6U.jpg
jpaFCs2FJbg.jpg
-qDPIDATi70.jpg
wPzqdWrLMTs.jpg
uDpmZiCXRhs.jpg
T2D_HtznfIY.jpg
cIf3F7pLK74.jpg

 

maybe some german speaking members can help with translation ?

 

as i understand turret was jammed after 90mm HE strike " no hydr. operation possible, turret ball bearing blocked after a short turn. No visible effect on the crew represented by cardboard cylinder. The tank is initially no longer operational."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:


jpaFCs2FJbg.jpg
-qDPIDATi70.jpg
wPzqdWrLMTs.jpgaJrK7vmIr6U.jpg
uDpmZiCXRhs.jpg
T2D_HtznfIY.jpg
cIf3F7pLK74.jpg

 

maybe some german speaking members can help with translation ?

 

as i understand turret was jammed after 90mm HE strike " no hydr. operation possible, turret ball bearing blocked after a short turn. No visible effect on the crew represented by cardboard cylinder. The tank is initially no longer operational."

I don't see pictures.

Generally I can't see ictures hosted there -what's the reson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 3:14 PM, Ramlaen said:

 GDLS's proposed 30mm Stryker A1 has a crew of 3 and 9 dismounts vs 2 and 9 on the flat bottom Dragoon.

 

So has the crew to go on a diet or did they move some internal components to the vehicle's exterior?

 

On 10/10/2018 at 8:14 PM, 2805662 said:

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.  

 

This post was not meant to criticize you, I just raised some questions. It just seems odd from the perspective of an outsider that the maturity problems would be related to not new, but old "components". Who knows, maybe the decision to develop (and use) the LANCE 2.0 turret was made only very recently and not at the beginning of the three years of development that've already been put into the Lynx KF41. Given that different business units create hull and turret respectively, there shouldn't be an issue with ressource usage delaying one or the other development.


Obviously the Boxer is a lot more mature than the Lynx KF41, that is not what I meant - qualification of sub-components can happen at different times of the development cycle. In current times, armor development is mostly happening independent of vehicle development, in most cases only armor modules are being tested, because full vehicles are expensive.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 9:31 PM, Serge said:

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 ? 

 

The Lynx KF41 is not meant to be a breakthrough, but an affordable next-generation IFV. It is a the first really modular IFV (in terms of being reconfigurable), a system developed for the Boxer that has proven to be somewhat successful. Unlike its main competitors on the market, it was designed with composite armor in mind, which might be advantageous (possibly having less weakspots and using the steel structure more weight-efficiently). It has a suspension designed to carry a lot of weight, was designed with mine protection from the start and has integrated driver's night vision system, rear drive camera and 360° vision system. The Lynx KF41 might not be a breakthrough vehicle in terms of technology, but it does a lot of smaller things better than the upgraded older generation of IFVs (i.e. ASCOD 2, CV90, M2A4, etc.).

 

 

The Lynx KF41 with the same protection level as the M2A4 Bradley would only weigh 1,000 kg more than it - which is quite a lot given its greater payload, 1.2 meters longer hull, increased engine power and more powerful armament.

 

As for the mobility: It depends on the configuration. As you said, the Lynx KF41 relies on proven components form companies with a good track record. The suspension is from Supashock and is one of the very few new components. It is "reconfigurable" to adapt to the weight changes between different variants, which together with website of Supashock might suggest an active suspension system (at least Supashock advertises active suspension technology for military vehicles). Mobility might be one of the areas where the performance of the Lynx KF41 is the closest to existing vehicles, but it still offers a greater payload.

 

On 10/14/2018 at 11:56 AM, LoooSeR said:

Well, under "what we had ... in T-72B3" i meant French-supplied thermal imager parts.

 

What is the problem with the Catherine thermal imagers from Thales? They seem to have good contrast levels and resolution based on photographs. In the end Catherine-FC is a 2nd gen thermal imager and Catherine-XP is a 3rd gen thermal imager, current Bradley and Abrams still use 2nd gen FLIR with a similarly sized sensor.

 

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Sydney J Freedberg, writer for BreakingDefense, shares his views on the NGCV contenders and infers from the talks at AUSA that the Griffin III is the preferred vehicle at the moment. 

 

In one of the video interviews at AUSA, GD said that the hull is currently pretty much a mock-up, not a real offer. The turret seems to be feature great capabilities, but there honestly is nothing that would prevent a similar (or the same; but that will never happen due to the arms industry competing against each other) turret could easily be fitted onto other IFVs. 

 

20 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I am a GDLS fanboy but I think MPF and OMFV are theirs to lose with the Griffin II and Griffin III.

 

Honestly the Griffin II seems to be least impressive offer for the MPF. The only mock-up shown was apparently based on one of the original ASCOD 1 hulls and lacked any sort of applique armor on the hull, while the turret also doesn't seem to be as feature complete as the ones offered by SAIC and BAE Systems. Honestly a modernized M8 AGS should be much better suited for all US Army requirements over a turret strapped onto an IFV hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

wPzqdWrLMTs.jpg

 

4.3 and 4.4 is about disalignment of the optics after being hit by an undefined tank gun. Under point 5. a hit by a 90 mm M71 HE round hitting the turret at 11 o'clock (i.e. right cheek of the turret front) is mentioned, the warhead of the is fuzed without delay and impact angle (relative to armor) is about 45°. The round is fired from 100 meters away, hitting 200 mm left and 500 mm below the optical range finder.

 

15 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

uDpmZiCXRhs.jpg

 

Following the hit by the HE round under 5., the following happened:

a) the gunner's sight is disaligned even more

b) the commander's sight's alignment couldn't be measured, because it broke

c) the following damage could be noticed at the rangefinder: The left opening already broke away after a hit form the 40 mm (Bofors) gun, now after being hit by a 90 mm HE round, the right optical opening of the rangefinder has broken away too. The shockwave of the detonation was enough to tear away the six screws(diameter 12.7 mm) holding in the (armored) protection cover in place. After removing the rangefinder and examining its status, it became apparent that all mirrors inside the rangefinder broke away from their mounting points. The dots and patterns inside the reticle weren't visible anymore, even though the illumination was still working. None of the mirrors was actually unfastened from the bonding, but the glass mountings broke.

 

24 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

T2D_HtznfIY.jpg

 

d) Five vision blocks of the commander were damaged. Two are completely useless (the glass in one is broken, the glass in the other has become misty), while the others are broken, but still can be used to some extent.

 

5.1 The shock caused damaged to the optical connection of the commander's sight, again a mirror was knocked out of the mounting.

 

5.2 Further test firing according to the (planned?) hit pattern was not possible, because the hits from the 90 mm gun damaged the turret mechanically in such a way, that it couldn't be turned anymore. These damages are mentioned in the report of the test facility 91 Meppen.

 

21 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

cIf3F7pLK74.jpg

 

 

4. Firing of a 90 mm HE round from the M48 tank and a distance of 50 m. One hit occured at the right turret side at the lower section, total distance to the rangefinder of the impact location was 600 mm. Result: Armored cover of the rangefinder torn away, right port of the rangefinder broken away. Turret slewing gear loosened (several screws torn away), no hydraulic operation (i.e. turning of the turret) possible anymore. Turret bearing blocks after turning a few degrees. No visible damage caused to the crew (simulated by cardboard cylinders). The tank is for the time being not fit for action.

 

Conclusion: The results of the hit on the optical equipment show that the rangefinder should be mounted elastically in the turret. Wether this can be achieved on the standard tank (i.e. later Leopard 1/AMX-30) without restricting the aiming by the gunner, is being investigated. It is planned to use a prototype of the standard tank's turret W 4a with fitted rangefinder for the same test firings.

 

___

This is a rather loose translation.

Share this post


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

@SH_MM I presume they moved around the insides because there is a second hatch where the winch used to be.

On 10/10/2018 at 4:30 AM, Ramlaen said:

I noticed that the winch on the left side of the hull is gone.

kUo9rCg.jpg

 

One may also remember this render:
2u0lffi.jpg
and this one too:
cku5bSl.jpg
or just usual arrangement in Stryker with antimine seats:
pNoU8fy.jpg


so - it seems to me like there is now a driver, than 1 person behind him, than 5 seats for dismounts on the left side, 1 person on the right side behind engine compartment, and 4 seats for dismounts behind him
and this passageway is gone - well, not that empty anymore, to be precise
wOa8JWT.jpg
and btw it seems like they removed this hatch:
pmLcimc.jpg

Share this post


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

In one of the video interviews at AUSA, GD said that the hull is currently pretty much a mock-up, not a real offer. The turret seems to be feature great capabilities, but there honestly is nothing that would prevent a similar (or the same; but that will never happen due to the arms industry competing against each other) turret could easily be fitted onto other IFVs. 

Hardly an issue for a vehicle that is only supposed to enter service in the mid to late 2020's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

In one of the video interviews at AUSA, GD said that the hull is currently pretty much a mock-up, not a real offer. The turret seems to be feature great capabilities, but there honestly is nothing that would prevent a similar (or the same; but that will never happen due to the arms industry competing against each other) turret could easily be fitted onto other IFVs. 

Hardly an issue for a vehicle that is only supposed to enter service in the mid to late 2020's.

And more importantly it's the size and weight the Army is looking for with the OMFV, the NGCV was suppose to be on the lighter side. Seems like the Lynx is designed for the GCV contest and not the OMFV.

Share this post


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

 

So the M1A2C weighs ~66.7 metric tons (73.6 short tons) or ~2.2 metric tons more than the M1A2 SEP v2 (with Trophy?).

 

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Hardly an issue for a vehicle that is only supposed to enter service in the mid to late 2020's.

 

The same time could be used by other competitors to replicate the turret...

 

9 hours ago, MRose said:

And more importantly it's the size and weight the Army is looking for with the OMFV, the NGCV was suppose to be on the lighter side. Seems like the Lynx is designed for the GCV contest and not the OMFV.

 

As far as I undeerstand, the weight is not limited as long as it meets the protection requirements. The Lynx KF41 (at 50 metric tons at most) falls quite a bit short of the Ground Combat Vehicle (the proposed designs weighed 60-70 metric tons), it is actually closer to the Griffin III (at nearly 40 metric tons with armor package fitted) than to the GCV. The original/planned requirement for the NGCV was apparently to carry at least a crew of two and five dismounts, but this was toughened to carry at least a crew of three and six dismounts. The US Army's decision makers could very well change their mind and prefer a lighter or heavier vehicle by 2026, when the NGCV is scheduled to enter service. The Lynx KF41's design is modular, so a lower weight can be achieved, but this might require lower protection levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/17/2018 at 7:41 PM, SH_MM said:

It is a the first really modular IFV (in terms of being reconfigurable), a system developed for the Boxer that has proven to be somewhat successful.

The KV41 is closer to the FFG G5 PMMC than the Boxer, considering the modularity. 

And the success of the Boxer because of its modularity is open for debate. Even Rheinmetall is not so affirmative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:
13 hours ago, MRose said:

And more importantly it's the size and weight the Army is looking for with the OMFV, the NGCV was suppose to be on the lighter side. Seems like the Lynx is designed for the GCV contest and not the OMFV.

 

As far as I undeerstand, the weight is not limited as long as it meets the protection requirements. The Lynx KF41 (at 50 metric tons at most) falls quite a bit short of the Ground Combat Vehicle (the proposed designs weighed 60-70 metric tons), it is actually closer to the Griffin III (at nearly 40 metric tons with armor package fitted) than to the GCV. The original/planned requirement for the NGCV was apparently to carry at least a crew of two and five dismounts, but this was toughened to carry at least a crew of three and six dismounts. The US Army's decision makers could very well change their mind and prefer a lighter or heavier vehicle by 2026, when the NGCV is scheduled to enter service. The Lynx KF41's design is modular, so a lower weight can be achieved, but this might require lower protection levels.

 

They can't change their mind once the RFP is drawn up without something short of scrapping the whole thing.  The NGCV was supposed to be around ~25-35 tons, almost a new FCS, but I guess they moved up the IOC quite a bit so they can't do something too radical and that's how we ended up with the OMFV. Now I'm getting a clearer idea why the RCV and all the other programs were lumped into the NGCV CFT.

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.
×