Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

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

Recoil system of the M256:  

There are now six companies competing to put a 30mm turret on A1 Strykers.

 

General Dynamics Land Systems

Kollsman, Inc.

Leonardo DRS

Raytheon

Pratt & Miller Engineering and Fabrication, Inc.

EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/20/following-protest-army-awards-6th-contract-for-upgunned-stryker-design/

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

There are now six companies competing to put a 30mm turret on A1 Strykers.

 

General Dynamics Land Systems

Kollsman, Inc.

Leonardo DRS

Raytheon

Pratt & Miller Engineering and Fabrication, Inc.

EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/20/following-protest-army-awards-6th-contract-for-upgunned-stryker-design/

Will EOS, Raytheon, and Leonardo be competing as individual companies, or are teamups allowed?

Because it would only seem natural to me that Elbit and Rafael would want a piece of that cake, especially considering how Rafael constantly shows its turret on a Stryker in its marketing material.

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

Will EOS, Raytheon, and Leonardo be competing as individual companies, or are teamups allowed?

Because it would only seem natural to me that Elbit and Rafael would want a piece of that cake, especially considering how Rafael constantly shows its turret on a Stryker in its marketing material.

 

I would be surprised if Elbit and Rafael were not partnering with a competitor.

For example, GDLS is almost guarenteed to be working with Kongsberg.

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

Because it would only seem natural to me that Elbit and Rafael would want a piece of that cake, especially considering how Rafael constantly shows its turret on a Stryker in its marketing material.

 

Kollsman Inc. is a wholy-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems.

 

https://elbitsystems.com/corporate-overview-major-subsidiaries/

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

 

Kollsman Inc. is a wholy-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems.

 

https://elbitsystems.com/corporate-overview-major-subsidiaries/

That's interesting. Recent news in Israeli media talked about a recently created vacuum in the US MIC, I believe following the merger of United Technologies with Raytheon, that specifically Elbit wanted to exploit. 

If they can produce turrets in Kollsman facilities, as well as their key market - avionics, then I wonder what market niche it is they want to occupy so desperately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=33ff7f472a30693dfc55ece72bc26199&tab=core&_cview=0

Quote

The purpose of this RFI is to request information on interested and capable sources for potential award(s) of a contract or contracts related to affordable and mature uncooled Long Wave Infrared (LWIR) sensors with wide Field of View (FOV), capable of providing high definition video to support driving military vehicles. The desired product must be able to be fully integrated into Ground Combat Vehicles while observing typical space and operational requirements.  LWIR sensors play a critical role in the movement of units in the military and have become an integral part of the warfighter's current vehicle capabilities. LWIR sensors allow warfighters to continue their mission, with minimized loss of efficiency during day and night time operations. The current Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE) has a 640 × 480 sensor format, and narrow 40 degree × 30 degree field of view (FOV), much lower than the pixel count of state-of-the-art uncooled LWIR cameras (up to 1920 × 1200). This RFI seeks to identify an affordable solution to support 360º LSA using high definition LWIR cameras. The proposed sensors should be technologically mature, meeting or exceeding Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6, and must also have a plan for qualification testing within 12 months after receipt of order (ARO).

In addition to UCIR sensors, this RFI seeks to find accompanying color visible and near infrared (NIR) (400 - 700+ nm) cameras with FOV and coverage matching those of the infrared sensors.

 

1. Objectives:
o Determine technically mature (TRL 6+) wide FOV uncooled long wavelength infrared (LWIR) and color visible/NIR sensors that provide local situational awareness (LSA) for driving military vehicles.
o Determine feasibility of delivering at least one UCIR and one color visible/NIR sensors within 6 months after receipt of order (ARO).

 

2. Description of Requirements:
Responses are requested for those sources that have the existing capability or plans to develop and deliver the requested information in the RFI with the characteristics meeting or exceeding those below:

 

2.1 Operational Requirements
The proposed system must provide a capability to allow the vehicle crew (driver, commander, squad), in both open and closed hatch operations, to visualize their immediate surroundings while stationary and on the move, day and night. In addition, it must cover at least 120 degree horizontal and 36 degree vertical, with a 3m ground intercept, have an instantaneous FOV of 1.1 mrad or better, and a 70% probability of detection out to 225m (T) 500m (O) of a NATO man-sized object.
Other operational requirements include:
- Sensor latency 25 msec (T) and 16 msec (O)
- Uncooled LWIR sensor (T) and color visible/NIR camera (O).
- Color visible/NIR sensors should have similar FOV, latency, frame rate, pixel resolution (1920 × 1200) as the UCIR sensors.

2.2 Electrical, Mechanical, and Interface requirements
The interested parties must be able to demonstrate that the proposed system (UCIR and color visible/NIR sensors) is compatible with the specifications of typical ground combat vehicles and video network architecture, including:
- 28 VDC vehicle power input (T) and MIL-STD-1275-E compatible (O).
- High-bandwidth digital video output interface (Camera Link or GigE).
- Raw imagery output capability.
- 30 Hz framerate or faster.
- 1280 × 1024 (T) or 1920 × 1200 (O) pixel resolution.
- Power consumption for each individual sensor in the system must be less than 2 ADC at 28 VDC.

2.3 Environmental requirements
UCIR and Daytime Sensors must:
- Be operable between the temperature range of -40 to +50 degree C.
- Comply with MIL-STD-810 (shock, vibration, humidity, and altitude).
- Be at TRL 6 or above.

2.4 Schedule requirements
Interested parties must be capable of delivering at least one individual sensor within 6 months ARO, for evaluation purposes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, can somebody tell about MBT-70 armor components?

Developer Var Thunder from Gaijin made his reservation on the "armor - air - armor" scheme.

But I read somewhere that the composition of his armor is still secret. And that there was not air. Is there any information about this?
ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ mbt-70 armor
Found this picture. It says that the composition of the armor consists of steel, aluminum, fiberglass and more steel.
ÐоÑожее изобÑажение

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

Guys, can somebody tell about MBT-70 armor components?

 

The spaced armor of the MBT-70 is just steel + air + steel. Originally the US Army didn't really want spaced armor, but Germany insisted on it to reduce weight while maintaining the desired level of protection.

 

At the interior there is a layer of plastic (polyethylene) to absorb neutron radiation. It is rather thick, but doesn't add any noteworthy amount of protection. Armor of the MBT-70 was rather poor compared to something like the T-64. The overall thickness of the turret front is comparable to the Leopard 2K/PT tanks.

 

U19keMb.jpg

 

That the MBT-70 contained ceramics, aluminium etc. seems to be based on the blatantly incorrect Wikipedia article to Chobham armor, which also claims that the Leopard 1A3 has "foamed ceramics" filling the empty space of its spaced armor. This is also wrong.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That the MBT-70 contained ceramics, aluminium etc. seems to be based on the blatantly incorrect Wikipedia article to Chobham armor, which also claims that the Leopard 1A3 has "foamed ceramics" filling the empty space of its spaced armor. This is also wrong.

 

Thanks, now I got it

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/us-marine-corps-awards-bae-systems-contract-to-develop-acv-family-vehicles

Quote
BAE Systems, along with teammate Iveco Defence Vehicles, has been awarded a $67 million contract modification by the U.S. Marine Corps to develop new variants for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) Family of Vehicles program for enhancing battlefield situational awareness and firepower.

The contract calls for the design and development of the command (ACV-C) and the 30mm medium caliber cannon (ACV-30) variants. The ACV-C incorporates seven work stations to provide situational awareness and control of the battle space. The ACV-30 integrates a 30mm cannon to provide the lethality and protection the Marines need while leaving ample room for troop capacity and payload. BAE Systems was previously awarded a low-rate initial production contract in June 2018 for the personnel variant (ACV-P)

 

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

Will this potential deal "offend the feelings of the Chinese people" ?

 

Speaking in Beijing on Tuesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said U.S. arms sales to Taiwan were a serious violation of international law and a "crude interference in China’s internal affairs, harming China’s sovereignty and security interests."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 12:02 PM, Ramlaen said:

There are now six companies competing to put a 30mm turret on A1 Strykers.

 

General Dynamics Land Systems

Kollsman, Inc.

Leonardo DRS

Raytheon

Pratt & Miller Engineering and Fabrication, Inc.

EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/20/following-protest-army-awards-6th-contract-for-upgunned-stryker-design/

 

Leonardo DRS's RIwP turret with an XM813, M240, Javelin and IBAS sight

 

qZtTitI.jpg

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...