Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

S'big innit.....Is there some sort of competition to see whose eight wheeled box is biggest?

 

PS - How T-55/RPG-7 resistant is it?

 

I'm going to assume that a 100mm APDS/APFSDS is a bit too much for it. Then again that’s too much for every 8x8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - How T-55/RPG-7 resistant is it?

 

Not at all in the current configuration. They might add ERA or slat armor at some time to deal with the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: This appears to be for the completion of the fourth brigade’s conversion.

 

Quote

General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $68,598,360 modification (0002) to contract W56HZV-17-D-B020 for the upgrade of Stryker flat bottom vehicles to the double V-hull configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2020. Fiscal 2017 Army procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles funds in the amount of $68,598,360 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.


General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $258,631,225 modification (0002 01) to contract W56HZV-17-D-B020 for the upgrade of Stryker flat bottom vehicles to the double V-hull configuration. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2020. Fiscal 2018 procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles funds in the amount of $258,631,225 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.

 

 

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1555810/

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1557461/

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big washers at the armor attachment points on an AAV-SU are a ceramic/aluminum metal matrix composite made by CPS Technologies, it's probable that they made the new ceramic armor as well.

 

Quote

“Over the next five years of the AAV program of record, nearly 40% of the USMC’s fielded AAVs will be upgraded - extending their service life, improving their performance and adding enough survivability upgrades to handle current and future operating environments. CPS Technologies’ HybridTech Armor® ballistic washers strengthen the armor attach points. They are much lighter than and offer a significant increase in ballistic protection over traditional steel washers. Our patented, metal encapsulated solution improves on state of the art ceramic performance and provides environmental durability that is measured in decades instead of years.”

"The vehicles that will be upgraded through 2023 on this program of record represent an important milestone in the validation of CPS Technologies HybridTech Armor by US military and international armor customers. This estimated $2 million revenue stream over the next five years, is an important step in the acceptance and proliferation of this advanced ballistic threat defeat capability for ground, naval and airborne applications"

 

hDkr7qK.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ZloyKrolik said:

What is the problem with regular steel washers? Are they that much of a detriment to protection? The modern equivalent of riveted armor?

 

It doesn't sound like there was anything specifically wrong with steel washers. The new ceramic side armor's purpose is to increase buoyancy in compensation for the added belly armor, spall liners and 675HP engine.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I think you are correct, I missinterpreted the press release advocating FY19 funding for the fifth brigade and missed this part.

 

"The FY2018 Appropriations Bill, signed into law last month, provided $348 million to complete the fourth Brigade set of modernized Stryker vehicles."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron Curtain by Artis is likely to be sidelined in favor of Trophy. Iron Fist may be sidelined as well but at a lower risk.

Both Iron Curtain and Iron Fist seem to be less mature than advertised. 

Trophy's performance went 'beyond expectations'.

 

Link here: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/amid-technical-challenges-us-army-could-shake-aps-/

 

Spoiler

The US Army may have given the Trophy active protection system (APS) the green light to proceed but the service looks to be on the brink of reappraising its efforts to procure other non-developmental APS after mixed results in the first phase of trialling technologies.

A cloud of confusion is currently hanging over the army’s next step for testing non-Trophy systems, with sources suggesting to Shephard that at least one vendor that took part in the initial trials to outfit army vehicles with an interim APS solution could be sidelined.    

While unconfirmed by the service at press time, industry sources have said that it is unclear if US company Artis, which supplied its ‘Iron Curtain’ system for characterisation on the Stryker 8x8, will take part in future testing. It is also not known how the army plans to move forward with the IMI Systems’ Iron Fist that has been trialled on the M2 Bradley.

Artis did not respond to a request for comment when asked about future participation and IMI Systems could not be reached for comment.

Reports earlier this year suggested that both Iron Curtain and Iron Fist had been delayed due to technical issues. Last year during an APS briefing at AUSA, the officer in charge of the effort told reporters that the two systems were still relatively immature compared with Trophy.

‘The maturity of those systems might not be as high as advertised,’ said Col Glenn Dean, who is responsible for both the Stryker Brigade Combat Team and APS acquisition at the army’s PEO Ground Combat Systems.

That is in stark contrast to the army’s Trophy APS success story, which was trialled on the M1A2 Abrams with positive results. Officers have openly stated that the Israeli Trophy system ‘exceeded expectations’ and have budgeted for four armoured brigade combat teams to receive the upgrade for their Abrams fleet.

Under a potential ‘phase 2’ effort for trialling non-developmental APS, the army could bring on board a new vendor. This is likely to be the German company ADS, part of the Rheinmetall Group, which has developed a system known as ADS-Gen3.

As part of the army's move to open the competition up, in April it released a Request for Information (RFI) calling for new, non-developmental APS before holding an industry day on 17 May at the Army Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan.

An ADS company spokesperson would not comment on US Army plans, but did say that the company was in ‘conversation with the army and they are aware of our capability’ and it was keeping them ‘informed of our availability’.

While the service is working to quickly field APS to troops in the field, ironically, over a decade ago army leaders abandoned plans to field an APS system on its fleet of vehicles. At the time, Trophy was one of the top contenders and was being integrated on Stryker vehicles under the service's Project Sheriff package.

Today, though, Trophy is back and Leonardo announced 26 June that it has been awarded a $193 million to integrate the capability on Abrams tanks.

'Leonardo DRS is proud to be a part of this important effort to bring life-saving technology to our warfighters, and we are actively investing to ensure Trophy provides a solid, American-made foundation for the army’s coming Vehicle Protection Suite program,' said Aaron Hankins, vice president and general manager of the Leonardo DRS Land Systems division.

New army leadership and concerns over a potential conflict with Russia are fuelling the need for systems to protect soldiers inside ground vehicles from incoming rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided weapons.

'We determined that we had a need for [APS], and we wanted to prioritise those in our early deploying first responders sort of units,' army chief of staff Gen Mark Milley told lawmakers during a Senate Appropriation subcommittee on Defense 15 May. 'So we picked four brigades, heavy brigades, to purchase those systems for.' 

Milley added that the service has not yet worked out a fielding schedule since the technologies are still under development, but the 'intent is to outfit the entire heavy force'. 

'So all of our vehicles, all the ground vehicles, the Bradleys, the tanks, any future combat vehicles, with active protective systems, but also with some aircraft; we haven't worked out the aircraft piece,' the top army general added.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier versions of these photographs were shopped to remove the weights on the turret, change the color of the interceptors from the inert trainer blue, remove the 'training safety blinker light', and fiddled with the objects in the background.

 

3aohR8t.jpg

aTGsiCX.jpg

ZkDxLo5.jpg

OcPt9Yp.jpg

 

And the older versions, plus one that was probably also altered.

 

WScsbZs.jpg
KyGOgp8.jpg
X47BeVl.jpg
qy7H3VC.jpg

P964HMj.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely makes more sense that when they tested the Trophy, and said they had balancing issues, that they tested it on a SEPv3 tank with its added weight, because they need the Trophy as well. 

A 2.2 ton figure for the Trophy alone always smelled fishy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Serge said:

Need to ask Damian 

 

Nah, Coli is right it's most likely the non-ionizing radations sign since the Trophy use radars for the detection or the threats.

 

300px-Trophy-APS--Merkava-4M-pic01-Zachi

 

Technically you could use DU plates as weights (it has been done in Boeing's planes for a very long time) but unless you thrown fast neutron at it, there is no way that a DU plate would be radioactive enough to warrant a radioactive trefoil.

Share this post


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

So something in the weight demonstrators is radioactive?`

It's probably just because of the radars. As you can see there is a warning on the back right by the rear facing radars, but since you can't really put one on the front section of the Trophy module, they probably put it on the turret cheeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason, by the way, that tankers ought to care about non-ionizing radiation is not that it is dangerous to their person.  Radio waves aren't really going to hurt people unless the intensity is so high that it can cook flesh or something.  Which these radars won't; they're not gigantic over-the-horizon tracking sets intended to see if the Russkis are starting WWIII or something.

 

The main hazard is that radio waves can set off electrically-primed ammunition.  120mm NATO tank ammunition is electrically-primed.

This is an interesting wrinkle to consider in debates of IR vs UV vs radar cued APS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

The reason, by the way, that tankers ought to care about non-ionizing radiation is not that it is dangerous to their person.  Radio waves aren't really going to hurt people unless the intensity is so high that it can cook flesh or something.  Which these radars won't; they're not gigantic over-the-horizon tracking sets intended to see if the Russkis are starting WWIII or something.

 

The main hazard is that radio waves can set off electrically-primed ammunition.  120mm NATO tank ammunition is electrically-primed.

This is an interesting wrinkle to consider in debates of IR vs UV vs radar cued APS.

I think APS will win over ammo, when someone will have to decide which of them to adapt to the other. A radar on a tank is just too valuable to forego just because of fuze issues. 

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...