Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, David Moyes said:

BAE to Get Green Light for $10 Billion Howitzer Project:
 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bae-to-get-green-light-for-dollar10-billion-howitzer-project/ar-BBYxHIM?ocid=st

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Army Now Has Enough Upgraded Abrams Tanks To Equip An Entire Brigade:
 


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-now-has-enough-upgraded-abrams-tanks-equip-entire-brigade-109656


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

BAE Raven:
 

bYukF2m.jpg

 

 

 

This Ronkainen fellow keeps posting old information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

can do KE reliably.

I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015.  Could deal with KE 30mm and above.  25mm too small to reliably detect.  The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis.  Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration.  But - Diehl did a diehl :) with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome.  The performance of that is very much less.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 4:41 PM, DIADES said:

I saw performance data for the Diehl APS in 2015.  Could deal with KE 30mm and above.  25mm too small to reliably detect.  The 120mm gets bent or knocked off axis.  Still a mighty bang on impact but no penetration.  But - Diehl did a diehl :) with IMI and Iron Fist is the outcome.  The performance of that is very much less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iron Fist is a result of earlier cooperation, don't think they had anything to do with each other by 2015.

Share this post


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

Iron Fist is a result of earlier cooperation, don't think they had anything to do with each other by 2015.

Interesting.  That may explain the performance discrepancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2020_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/general_dynamics_land_systems_releases_first_picture_of_new_mpf_combat_vehicle.html

 

Quote

The new “light tank” will have improved armor and a 120 mm main gun that looks like the Abrams’ 120mm cannon. 

 

Though it is rather 105 mm cannon on the prototype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/01/16/army-takes-step-back-on-bradley-replacement-prototyping-effort/

Quote

Several sources confirmed a letter was circulating around Capitol Hill from GDLS to the Army secretary that strongly urged the service to continue with the program without delay.

 

Gee sure doesn't sound like something done to favor Raytheon/Rheinmetall after they failed to deliver a bid sample on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that. You don't end up with a sole offer on a program of that size, unless you are demanding something goofy. Nobody even bothered (sure, the Lynx technically couldn't be shipped in time - but failure to ship in time is something that reeks of the bosses not treating it as a plausible thing) to bid outside of GDLS, and if Breaking Defense is right, GDLS couldn't even actually meet the monstrous spec list.

 

Share this post


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

I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that

 

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but googling around I found the draft RFP:

https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal Government/ID229292510237748546949630439132667118527/DRAFT_NGCV-OMFV_RFP_(W56HZV-18-R-0174).pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

 

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but googling around I found the draft RFP:

https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal Government/ID229292510237748546949630439132667118527/DRAFT_NGCV-OMFV_RFP_(W56HZV-18-R-0174).pdf

 

 

That's just the contract legalese, actual vehicle requirements are tab 2 of attachment 0045, which I have not found.

Share this post


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

That's just the contract legalese, actual vehicle requirements are tab 2 of attachment 0045, which I have not found.

 

Sorry about that. Would be interesting to know what the specific requirement was that made it unattainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

specific requirement

as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable.  The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature....  DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering.

 

  I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy.

Share this post


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

as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable.  The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature....  DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering.

 

  I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy.

 

Hey, I guessed right - the absolutely stupid 360 degree protection requirement was what doomed the GCV as well (remember the baseline config was 60 something tons and the system max was 84?). The Puma is as good as you can get protection wise and fitting two on a C-17.

Share this post


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

Any word on what the 360 degree protection requirement was for? Or even some rough ballpark of what they wanted it to be able to resist?

 

Anyone who actually knows wouldn't tell you.

Share this post


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

Anyone who actually knows wouldn't tell you.

Correct, well certainly shouldn't.  If you want to estimate it yourself, pretend you are a spotty teenager and go around the web copy paste every threat you can find (lint ballistic to 30mm) = OMFV threats to be defeated.  Specification development by window shopping.

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...