Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

Seeing that Damian still keeps posting his crazy theories about the M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP having DU armor in the hull, here is a rather recent document (answer by the NRC to a licence request for storing and using DU armor by General Dynamics):

 

www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15057A184.pdf

 

GqQrmjw.png

 

Note that there is no mention of the hull, but the turret is specifically mentioned.

 

Applied for the renewal of the licence on 13th of June 2014, letter dated 16th of December 2014, fully approved on 25th of February 2015.

ywVWNYc.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Karamazov said:

 

This is antenna? 

 

Don't know, I can't tell from that angle if it is a command variant.

 

Although I do see the mystery black cylinder that is also seen on the M1A2C and M2A4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ramlaen Not to mention, it also sports the CREW Duke v3 antenna (behind that black cylinder), which suggests they're different (as in, separate) systems.

 

I'm still not convinced it's the Multimodal Hostile Fire Detection System (to be included with Raytheon's Lynx offering), as the top of the sensor array sports a ring of flash-detecting optics: that black cylinder is clearly smooth with no set of apertures...and I don't think it's just a removable protection cap meant to cover the MFHDS when the latter is not in use.

 

 

EDIT: it's certainly one of the new AMPVs, probably the Mission Command variant.

 

5QtiP8Z.jpg

 

You can clearly see that antenna pedestal in front of the CREW Duke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 8:09 AM, Ramlaen said:

VQ2dGDs.jpg

I don’t think it’s an aerial. I can be wrong of course but it looks like more a cable protection. 

 

A French long rang radio exemple :

carthage+%2528171.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just some questions regarding the M1A2 SEP  :

  • Regarding the SEP v2, what do they exactly mean by upgraded transmission ?
  • Why the SEP v1's UAAPU was replaced by 6 Hawker batteries on the SEP v2 ?

Share this post


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

I have just some questions regarding the M1A2 SEP  :

  • Regarding the SEP v2, what do they exactly mean by upgraded transmission ?
  • Why the SEP v1's UAAPU was replaced by 6 Hawker batteries on the SEP v2 ?

 

There is a bit of conflicting information about the UAAPU, from what I read the original was a small gas turbine.

 

The development of the M1A2 SEP's UAAPU was stopped and not included in production vehicles.

 

Some units still had M1A2 that were upgraded with it.

 

After which more APU engines were developed.

 

The UAAPU in the M1A2C appears to be a new design.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). 

Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1


j5OHfLpl.jpg

884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices.

 

Spoiler

65-ton (59 metric) version of SAIFV, with two-man turret with protection equal to that of hull.
KKDb4eX.jpg
ZxT51pg.jpg
PtqcDpI.jpg
"reduced protection" version - 5-6 tons lighter that first one.
loeWSJh.jpg
59-ton version with "weapon pod"
FFALsDZ.jpg
P1WMGg7.jpg
uFzCcU2.jpg
6 roadwheel version - apparently one mentioned in Appendix D as 55-ton (50 metric) IFV#4
mvaCDpk.jpg
75mm gun in low-profile turret, 59 tons. Chapter V p.332-333 mentiones that (traditional?) turret was considered - but was dropped as it appeared that vehicle's weight would reach 70 tons (63,5 metric)
Ih8F7XT.jpg
kSgR1Py.jpg
bw3zBwl.jpg
Appendix E also mentiones version with all around protection against 81mm CE ammunition, and increased protection against 127mm and 107mm CE, - all that at expense of frontal KE protection (so 115mm projectile was able to penetrate both turret's and hull's frontal armor). No pictures of this one.

 

 

Appendix D - Mobility analisys of IFV task force alternatives (1978-02) has some more information on some variants:
Eiz8lza.jpg
Mrxhzv0.jpg
5CmnB8H.jpg
unfortunatelly there are no pictures of this 33-ton IFV#5
 

 

proposal on how to fit more dismoiunts into Bradley (Ch. IV p.73-77)
8pVVhLX.jpg
2PpSSh8.jpg
3O4qFR7.jpg
XSg8ZPj.jpgU7beJ21.jpg

 

Appendix E - BRL Vulnerability Analysis of the IFV concepts

g4e2QaI.jpg
B0NsAy8.jpg
65JqgCg.jpg
kt2VP9n.jpg
5IR11ha.jpg
WYxn6dzl.jpg

 


cost figures from Appendices F and B:
vYi5nl9.jpg
lIcxmZR.jpg
things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17):
(there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment)
Qu3k1ri.jpg
apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). 

 

 

...
btw, GAO's report  "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23:
CLg7ikE.jpg
and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):
0bZyzcN.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 3:56 PM, 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.

 

Screen-Shot-2018-10-15-at-6.36.13-PM.png

 

He makes some good points.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/

What good points !

Nobody knows the tiniest thing about the Griffin ou the Lynx and everybody is clapping the Griffin ?

The most important : nobody knows about what the US-Army want. 

This is ridiculous 

Share this post


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

What good points !

Nobody knows the tiniest thing about the Griffin ou the Lynx and everybody is clapping the Griffin ?

The most important : nobody knows about what the US-Army want. 

This is ridiculous 

It's not uncommon to be instantly biased for a certain AFV just by how fitting it looks, or aesthetically pleasing it is.

Seems the Griffin just gave a stronger more positive first impression on the relevant observers.

Despite the rigorous tests and evaluations expected for each contender, this is still an important aspect.

 

Personally, I'm also most impressed with the Griffin. 

Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).

 

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

 

I've expressed several times my disappointment in Rheinmetall not installing their ADS (now RAP) on even vehicles they co-developed or fully developed. I stand  by this sentiment again here. Rheinmetall could have made a better impression with their KF41.

Share this post


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

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

Not sure how showing a CV90 with a bushmaster 50mm would change anything. The US has already tested the gun on the Bradley. 

And if you thinking about the recoil or similar, the CV90 is capable of fitting the Bofors 57mm gun.

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

Share this post


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

Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).

...

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

 

The turret of the Griffin 3 was a mock-up, so you are contradicting yourself quite a bit...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Not sure how showing a CV90 with a bushmaster 50mm would change anything. The US has already tested the gun on the Bradley. 

And if you thinking about the recoil or similar, the CV90 is capable of fitting the Bofors 57mm gun.

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

 

The 50mm gun on the Griffin III is not the 35/50mm Bushmaster III. A 35mm armed CV90 would need a modified turret to house the linkless ammo boxes attached to the gun.

Share this post


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

 

The 50mm gun on the Griffin III is not the 35/50mm Bushmaster III. A 35mm armed CV90 would need a modified turret to house the linkless ammo boxes attached to the gun.

Wasn't one of the big selling points of the Bushmaster III that changing from 35 to 50mm was easy? 

 

Also, I am speaking about the CV90, not the Griffin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Wasn't one of the big selling points of the Bushmaster III that changing from 35 to 50mm was easy? 

 

Also, I am speaking about the CV90, not the Griffin. 

 

And I'm speaking about putting the US Army's 50mm gun in a CV90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

 

And I'm speaking about putting the US Army's 50mm gun in a CV90.

Taking the 50mm in the griffin and installing it in the CV90?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Taking the 50mm in the griffin and installing it in the CV90?

This is not possible because the TARDEC artillery solution is very different from the BAE CV’s one. 

With the TARDEC, the linklees feeding system is cohesive with the auto-canon. When the cradle is moving, everything is moving. 

Inside the CV90 turret, you have a supple conveyors wich transfer the ammunitions from the magazine to the chamber.

 

The first solution permit a very high travel course. With the more classic Swedish solution, you are more limited. 

The Tardec drawback is the turret roof which must be raised. 

 

So, the CV90 turret can’t house the TARDEC solution.

 

The only solution to reach 85deg of travel would have been to use a rotating chamber. But it means the use of a CTA canon... wich is not US at all. 

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.
×