Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

It appears that the MCT-30 either cannot accept an APS, or will have a very hard time doing so.

 

For what it’s worth, the MCT-30 brochure (second result if you google "MCT-30")  does list APS as an option, and I assume Kongsberg wouldn’t do that unless it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Because armor has limited utility in the fight  the US Army is now really training for?

 

Maybe 10 years ago. But right now, they're being pretty open about a focus on warfare against a near peer enemy, which could mean anything from hybrid warfare to high intensity warfare, so MaxxPro MRAP trucks are out, and mechanized units are in.

 

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

I feel like a record but what does a turreted APS gain you if you are buying a hull mounted APS so that your turretless vehicles can also have an APS?

 

First, and again, logistically there is no drawback in having both a hull mounted and turret mounted APS.

 

Second, the main advantage is you can go hull down and have the turret protected, as your sensors and shooters (radar and interceptor launcher) are within LoS of the threat and not concealed by earth.

 

Another advantage is that you can entirely (if the integration is properly made) avoid additional width or avoid compromising some of the protection, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
55 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Because armor has limited utility in the fight  the US Army is now really training for?

 

Maybe 10 years ago. But right now, they're being pretty open about a focus on warfare against a near peer enemy, which could mean anything from hybrid warfare to high intensity warfare, so MaxxPro MRAP trucks are out, and mechanized units are in.

 

APSes are for the hybrid threat. Stationing an ABCT or 2 in Poland goes a long way. (Sorry @LoooSeR) The US Army right now is a lot more focused on rebuilding its long range strike capabilities, than investing in marginal improvements of existing platforms. Too bad LORA doesn't go out to 499km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add that launcher-based APS need space for the launchers. With only 2, they need good firing arcs, which means they need to be high and get in the way of the turret's gun arcs.

Look at the Trophy on the regular Namer, and consider how much that installation would get in the way of the turret's arcs.

Share this post


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

First, and again, logistically there is no drawback in having both a hull mounted and turret mounted APS.

 

Except adding a turreted system for a vehicle fleet you have a hull system for increases logistics, procurement costs, new training, requires qualification testing and assorted amounts of red tape etc

 

I also don't think width is a concern if it doesn't extend past the bulky ERA blocks along the hull sides.

 

45 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I'd add that launcher-based APS need space for the launchers. With only 2, they need good firing arcs, which means they need to be high and get in the way of the turret's gun arcs.

Look at the Trophy on the regular Namer, and consider how much that installation would get in the way of the turret's arcs.

 

I think this is a valid concern, although I would argue that the Namer's Trophy location is based on miming the Merkava's for simplicity and didn't need to consider a turret. If it had you would see it in the corners instead of on the roof.

 

Additionally you have to ask if it really warrants a second system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

The A4 cutoff doesn't surprise me (already guessed it yesterday on AW forums) But even the AMPV? Jesus as if things couldn't get any worse. 

 

But hey I'll just repeat what I said on AW forums. Big Army is gonna cuttoff/Cancel all these developed and basically ready vehicles in favor of sinking billions into some fancy new projects. That is said projects will get canned without a single serial vehicle being made flushing those billions of $$$$ down the toilet. Remember the GCV anyone? 

 

For what it's worth it seems more like that the A4 upgrade is being scaled back instead of simply being cut.

 

The ECP1 changes and APS should be safe, removing the future growth perhaps? It's a guessing game until the FY20 request comes out.

Share this post


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

 

For what it's worth it seems more like that the A4 upgrade is being scaled back instead of simply being cut. Removing the future growth perhaps?

 

When you put it that way, the Bradley sounds like a tumor... which I won’t argue against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

APSes are for the hybrid threat. Stationing an ABCT or 2 in Poland goes a long way. (Sorry @LoooSeR) The US Army right now is a lot more focused on rebuilding its long range strike capabilities, than investing in marginal improvements of existing platforms. Too bad LORA doesn't go out to 499km.

 

Hybrid and high intensity are pretty much the same threat set and require the same preparations in terms of tech. Just a different pace of things. 

Even the largest and most advanced regular armies cannot deploy MBTs to every combat area, which is why flanking and shit still happens and always will happen, and they have ATGMs distributed across a whole lot of platforms with varying combat capabilities.

So even when going against Russia or China or whatever, the top threat is going to be ATGMs. 

Especially once they go past 2nd gen ATGMs.

 

But it's not going to stay strictly anti-ATGM.

By 2021 there will be two serially produced MBTs with APS that can defeat KEPs.

By 2025 I assume the number will grow to 3 or 4.

By 2030 it will be 5 at least.

 

It's not a marginal upgrade either. An APS is a force multiplier, and if you look at it on the brigade level, or even division level, you got a formation that can stomp any similar sized formation.

 

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Except adding a turreted system for a vehicle fleet you have a hull system for increases logistics, procurement costs, new training, requires qualification testing and assorted amounts of red tape etc

 

I also don't think width is a concern if it doesn't extend past the bulky ERA blocks along the hull sides.

 

 

I think this is a valid concern, although I would argue that the Namer's Trophy location is based on miming the Merkava's for simplicity and didn't need to consider a turret. If it had you would see it in the corners instead of on the roof.

 

Additionally you have to ask if it really warrants a second system.

 

How does it add to logistics? It's literally the same system, except it's fastened to the hull or turret in a different way.

How does it change training? How does it change procurement costs? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Strykers an as example which only a small amount of the total fleet have turrets, it increases procurement costs by way of needing to buy turret mounted units in addition to the hull mounted units you would be buying. Obviously in the (far) future when the US buys enough APS to have dedicated units for each vehicle (if we buy that many) this wouldn't be an issue.

 

Additionally if the MCT-30 could in fact not mount an APS, a turret mounted APS would require introducting a whole new turret to replace them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
4 hours ago, MRose said:

 

APSes are for the hybrid threat. Stationing an ABCT or 2 in Poland goes a long way. (Sorry @LoooSeR) The US Army right now is a lot more focused on rebuilding its long range strike capabilities, than investing in marginal improvements of existing platforms. Too bad LORA doesn't go out to 499km.

 

Hybrid and high intensity are pretty much the same threat set and require the same preparations in terms of tech. Just a different pace of things. 

Even the largest and most advanced regular armies cannot deploy MBTs to every combat area, which is why flanking and shit still happens and always will happen, and they have ATGMs distributed across a whole lot of platforms with varying combat capabilities.

So even when going against Russia or China or whatever, the top threat is going to be ATGMs. 

Especially once they go past 2nd gen ATGMs.

 

But it's not going to stay strictly anti-ATGM.

By 2021 there will be two serially produced MBTs with APS that can defeat KEPs.

 By 2025 I assume the number will grow to 3 or 4.

By 2030 it will be 5 at least.

 

It's not a marginal upgrade either. An APS is a force multiplier, and if you look at it on the brigade level, or even division level, you got a formation that can stomp any similar sized formation.

 

 

In a peer war environment, you generally want US MBTs up against Russian MBTs because that's the most effective platform against those. We haven't seen the Iron Fist data or any other, so it's safe to be conservative. Then there's the matter of if Russia will even be able to equip their T72BXXs with it.

Share this post


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

 

In a peer war environment, you generally want US MBTs up against Russian MBTs because that's the most effective platform against those. We haven't seen the Iron Fist data or any other, so it's safe to be conservative. Then there's the matter of if Russia will even be able to equip their T72BXXs with it.

The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.

 

The IDF also seems confident enough with the Iron Fist to have it fully operational on a Merkava tank by 2021. And when I say "by 2021" I mean that by the end of 2021 the first battalion should receive a full shipment of Merkava 4 tanks with the system, after it has been in a state of FRP since at least late 2020, which in terms of military procurement again, is very soon.

 

Next in line are going to be the US who have at least shown intent, and made some progress by pushing forward the MAPS project that will allow easier retrofitting.

Then the Aussies will follow suit, and later on the Franco-German alliance will show something.

 

Historically, at least most battles have been very one sided. You''d not want your lighter less capable troops to fight the enemy's best, but you also don't want to fight their best if you can pick off their lighter more vulnerable assets first. This is among the many reasons why distributed firepower is essential.

When even support elements are packing serious anti-tank capability, you'd want to have some protection to gain back the confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.

 

Maybe if oil goes $200, Putin's going with more let's say "unconventional" weapons that don't even work.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe if oil goes $200, Putin's going with more let's say "unconventional" weapons that don't even work.

 

   I am sick of this "Putin's X" or "Putin's Y" crap. Putin's army, Putin's ships, Putin's boots, Putin's tooth brushes, Putin's chairs and underpants. Trying to squeeze 140+ mil people coutnry into "Putin's Z" is overused and stupid. Especially now, when fucking communists are starting to win local elections and taking places from United Russia, it should be obvious.

 

   Oil money is not first reason for Economical health/capabilites of Russia. Economic problems and decline started in 2013, before oil prices drop and Ukrainian events. 

 

   Tanks equipment proposals are not Putin's work, MoD finally managed to unfuck itself (partially) and put Relik on T-72B3 in situation of low prices on oil and big amount of MoD money used for Bulavas and Sarmats. Equipping small fleet of T-72s with APS is not some sort of country-wide effort when people need to give up their trousers so army can afford T-72s with Arenas.

   Also, it is great that you apparently know how well "Putin's "unconventional" weapons" work and apparently you have data on their reliability. Would you like to share it with us?

 

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.

 

The IDF also seems confident enough with the Iron Fist to have it fully operational on a Merkava tank by 2021. And when I say "by 2021" I mean that by the end of 2021 the first battalion should receive a full shipment of Merkava 4 tanks with the system, after it has been in a state of FRP since at least late 2020, which in terms of military procurement again, is very soon.

 

Next in line are going to be the US who have at least shown intent, and made some progress by pushing forward the MAPS project that will allow easier retrofitting.

Then the Aussies will follow suit, and later on the Franco-German alliance will show something.

 

Historically, at least most battles have been very one sided. You''d not want your lighter less capable troops to fight the enemy's best, but you also don't want to fight their best if you can pick off their lighter more vulnerable assets first. This is among the many reasons why distributed firepower is essential.

When even support elements are packing serious anti-tank capability, you'd want to have some protection to gain back the confidence.

   Yemen, Syria, Ukraine shows high level of saturation of combating forces with ATGMs and relatively not bad perfomances with even old ATGMs like Fagots and similar ancient crap against even modern versions of Abrams tanks (although export models). APS are becoming more interesting for armies and their price\effectiveness ratio is less of a problem compared to same ratios with ERA/up armor kits and their shortcomings. Today any allakhakbar idiot have supply of ATGM from all countries that produced ATGMs, North Korean, Chinese, French, US, Russian, Bulgarian, etc. So futher integration of APS to service is not a surprise.

 

   US army ability to put existing products to service is much better than Russian MoD, as we have much lower pool of things to choose from. And majoirty of them are not products that are in service in other countries or service-ready designs. If we could create a common military tech field with China and few other countries (Best Korea, give us your 3++/4 gen ATGM!), this problem would have been less prominent.

 

   So we will get APS at some point, but i expect our MoD aim is local conflicts with enemy armed with Soviet-tech level of weapons. Maybe Arena will be somewhat enough for this. I am not sure if US army should be concern with this, as primary weapon for us in serious wars will be artillery and MRLS, long range missiles and so on. Also, Western countries already have good infantry-used counter to our tanks, with or without APS - all those 3+ gen ATGMs. 

 

   Question remains about Afganit's capabilities, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Using Strykers an as example which only a small amount of the total fleet have turrets, it increases procurement costs by way of needing to buy turret mounted units in addition to the hull mounted units you would be buying. 

 

 

Don’t forget non-recurring engineering costs of things like the vehicle integration kits - variant-specific brackets, mounts, wiring, performance testing & verification. Ideally, you’d be able to use the same configuration items across variants, but there will likely be some up front costs for integration. 

Share this post


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

 I am sick of this "Putin's X" or "Putin's Y" crap. Putin's army, Putin's ships, Putin's boots, Putin's tooth brushes, Putin's chairs and underpants. Trying to squeeze 140+ mil people coutnry into "Putin's Z" is overused and stupid. Especially now, when fucking communists are starting to win local elections and taking places from United Russia, it should be obvious.

 

Putin's taken a certain ownership in the nuclear cruise missile? Didn't he order it tested, when the leaders of the project told him it wasn't ready.

 

9 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 Oil money is not first reason for Economical health/capabilites of Russia. Economic problems and decline started in 2013, before oil prices drop and Ukrainian events. 

 

   Tanks equipment proposals are not Putin's work, MoD finally managed to unfuck itself (partially) and put Relik on T-72B3 in situation of low prices on oil and big amount of MoD money used for Bulavas and Sarmats. Equipping small fleet of T-72s with APS is not some sort of country-wide effort when people need to give up their trousers so army can afford T-72s with Arenas.

    Also, it is great that you apparently know how well "Putin's "unconventional" weapons" work and apparently you have data on their reliability. Would you like to share it with us?

 

We're agreement here. I was talking about Zuk's fantasy of fielding the T-14s en masse, that's why I brought up the price of oil. Western reports had the missile failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MRose said:

 

Putin's taken a certain ownership in the nuclear cruise missile? Didn't he order it tested, when the leaders of the project told him it wasn't ready.

 

 

We're agreement here. I was talking about Zuk's fantasy of fielding the T-14s en masse, that's why I brought up the price of oil. Western reports had the missile failing.

Fielding of T-14 is not going to happen soon, and if you survey this forum a bit better you'd know that I'm most vocal here about Russia's MoD's intents to freeze all projects for new platforms (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang). But eventually they will start making them.

Share this post


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

Fielding of T-14 is not going to happen soon, and if you survey this forum a bit better you'd know that I'm most vocal here about Russia's MoD's intents to freeze all projects for new platforms (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang). But eventually they will start making them.

 

On 9/26/2018 at 6:06 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.

??????

The T-14 will not be fielded in any meaningful numbers in the next 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/modern-day-marine-2018-updated-with-day-3-pictures.6904078/ some user uploaded bunch of photos made at that MDM-2018 exhibition
/unfortunatelly, full-scale photos are available only to users of that snipershide forum, and also for some reason i was unlucky in my attempt to make an acount there/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
11 hours ago, MRose said:

Also APSs aren't the best in high intensity warfare because signal management actually matters vs AFG/Iraq/Gaza/etc.

You know you can just turn them off, right?

 

If that's the case, and you're preparing for a near peer war, the money is better spent elsewhere...

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...