Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Someone found a picture from when CMI’s turret was tested on a Stryker.

E4UFiWc.jpg

Seen it. Not impressed. It's quite oversized. Looks modern and all, but CMI seem to not care very much about the protective capabilities of their products. At least to me. 

Even with Kongsberg's turret they got a very tall vehicle, and it's not even a large turret.

 

I still think it is pointless to test a new turret without at least integrating an APS to it. Be it a Trophy or Iron Fist or whatever they choose (just not that god awful Iron Curtain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Bit early to be flogged as surplus, surely?

HMMWV's are turning up, why not first gen M1 APU's? (or the ones from late M60's?).

 

If you check the auctions there is all kinds of fairly recent material turning up, so it makes me wonder where the "old" ones are going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more info on the Stryker with a CMI turret.

 

Quote

The press service of the US Army announced on 17 May that the Fort Benning hosted a live-fire demonstration of a new Stryker weapon’s system.

According to a statement, the upgraded Stryker armored fighting vehicle equipped with new medium calibre turret has demonstrated its capacity during a live-fire event held at the Fort Benning in Georgia.

“Tuesday Fort Benning hosted a live-fire demonstration of a new Stryker weapon’s system designed to increase the accuracy and lethality of the Stryker.” said in a statement.

The U.S. Army  Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)  in cooperation with, the CMI Defence developed new variant of Stryker armored fighting vehicle armored with medium caliber turret.

The turret system provides a cutting edge situational-based fire control system as well as the XM813, the US Army’s linkless 30mm medium caliber weapon system, currently to be fielded as part of the Stryker ONS. This system has the capability, once tested, to be used in multiple future US Army programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Are they *trying* to raise the center of gravity to somewhere approximating lunar orbit? This looks to be taller than the MGS mount and we all know the amazing stability that vehicle had.

 

The MGS did not have stability issues.

 

And just in case, yes it had no problems firing to the side.

Share this post


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

 

The MGS did not have stability issues.

 

And just in case, yes it had no problems firing to the side.

 

I know that it wasn't in danger of rolling over every time it looked sideways, but did have issues with smoothness over undulating terrain and had a more severe side-slope limit. Strykers always seemed top heavy to me, and this just seems to make the problem a lot worse than the alternative 30mm options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scolopax said:

So are newer Stryker dragoons going to be equipped with this turret, or was it only used trial testing? I'm confused.

 

The thing certainly doesn't add looks to the vehicle.

 

Dragoons are the result of an urgent operational needs statement (ONS) for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment which is stationed in Germany. A “we need bigger teeth, what can we get quickly”, and the Kongsberg MCT-30 turret + XM813 gun was such a thing.

 

The Army has decided the Stryker fleet as a whole needs bigger teeth (Stryker Lethality ECP), and since there isn’t the ONS rush they are looking at their options.

 

If you remember about a year ago the Army put out an RFI that they were looking for a turret with additional capability than what is currently on the Dragoon. And just recently announced an industry day for vendors to make presentations.

 

As for the CMI turret, it didn’t originate from the Stryker Lethality ECP (see video) but it fits what the Army is looking for. Its selection isn’t a done deal but I think it has a lot of weight behind it, especially if the Army wants to put it on other vehicles as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm just a broken record at this point, on this issue, but it baffles me how can they in all seriousness miss this amazing and one time opportunity to unify the APS and turret projects into one.

It can save a great deal of money. These guys can spare a ton more money to dump on projects than most other countries (except KSA) but even they have serious budget issues.

 

AND it actually increases lethality not because it lets the Stryker live another day if it's targeted with some ATGM or ATR, but because the Stryker is so squishy that it pretty much must have an HFD (Hostile Fire Detection). Why is it only a priority for the Abrams ECP? God knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Is the XM813 gun different to the Mk44 that’s used by the US Navy (& presumably fitted to the Dragoon)?

 

The XM813 is a variant of the Mk44 with a slightly longer barrel, dual recoil system and a linkless ammunition feed from Meggitt.

Share this post


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

And externally also a different thermal sleeve. Correct?

 

The bumps from the recoil system at the base of the barrel on the XM813?

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


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

 

The bumps from the recoil system at the base of the barrel on the XM813?

No, these aren't unique to the XM813, they existed on the Bushmaster II in that configuration, I believe, for quite some time.

 

I'm talking about the thick cover around the entire barrel that didn't exist on the standard Bushmaster II. 

Share this post


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

No, these aren't unique to the XM813, they existed on the Bushmaster II in that configuration, I believe, for quite some time.

 

I'm talking about the thick cover around the entire barrel that didn't exist on the standard Bushmaster II. 

 

Off the top of my head the Mk44’s used by the USAF and USN have the sleeve, as do CV90-30’s.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 12:20 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

The XM813 is a variant of the Mk44 with a slightly longer barrel, dual recoil system and a linkless ammunition feed from Meggitt.

 

So, from a product qualification/safety & suitability for service perspective, a new gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Presumably the ammo doesn't need to be re-qualified, surely that saves some time?

 

I’m not overly familiar with the process, but wouldn’t qualifying the various ammunition in the XM813 gun be part of qualifying the gun itself?

 

My presumption is that it won’t be fully type classified until the Mk310 airburst round is in service.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve only seen S3 testing done with small arms. Have an agreed number of natures of ammunition tested a “qualified” for Initial Materiel Release (IMR)/Initial Operating Capability (IOC), then do the rest to get to FMR/FOC. So, in the case of a new rifle, you could have ball and blank at IMR/IOC, then reduced range training ammunition, frangible ammunition, tracer, armour piercing, and simunition by IMR/FMR. 

 

Way more complicated for mounted systems, especially when considering recoil & feed systems. 

 

I would’ve thought using the Mk44 off the shelf would’ve been lower risk, but that’s just a gut feel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...