Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Some articles claim, that SEPv2 has no APU. Then, what is this exhaust on the side?

 

The black grid shaped object on the turret is part of the MILES CV-TESS kit.

 

https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/land/training-and-simulation/live-training/vehicle-simulator/cvtess_web.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.army.mil/article/231862/anti_tank_missile_gunners_get_enhanced_protection_with_new_armored_turret

Working with the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army engineers at Picatinny Arsenal have developed a new armored turret to provide greater survivability to TOW missile gunners without heaping extra weight on vehicles.

The venerable TOW missile takes its name from Tubed-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided. A spool of wire, thousands of meters long, unwinds while the missile is in flight. Guidance data passes through the wire in real time, allowing the gunner to accurately steer the missile to its final destination. The firing sequence takes time, and the gunner's confidence level must remain high. 

The new TOW Objective Gunner Protection Kit (TOGPK 2.0) turret provides just the right balance of armor, situational awareness and weapon maneuverability to fight effectively, according to engineers at Picatinny. 

Firing the TOW Missile is not a trivial operation. First, the gunner must confirm the target with absolute certainty. The weapon sights are then precisely aimed down range. The trigger is pulled and suddenly an intense shock wave fills the air. The missile is in flight. Now the gunner maintains full composure to patiently and steadily guide the missile directly to the target.

The Marines who operate this weapon can attest to its power. They are well-trained experts who deliver extreme amounts of energy on target. 

"The TOGPK 2.0 is the latest turret that we developed jointly with the U.S. Marine Corps," explained Thomas Kiel, who leads the engineering design of armored turret systems at Picatinny Arsenal. "The Marine Corps is an exceptional fighting force with very high expectations. Our close partnership with experienced warfighters during the design phase was especially helpful in meeting their needs." Picatinny worked closely with the Marine Corps System Command, which has the ultimate decision authority over the requirements and final solution. 

The Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center, with headquarters at Picatinny, is responsible for designing protective turrets for tactical vehicles. These armored kits greatly enhance survivability, while allowing gunners to focus on their mission objectives.

The TOGPK 2.0 design utilizes new armor materials that were derived from the Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory. Lightweight and highly effective materials are pursued that provide the stopping power required without overburdening the vehicles with extra weight. 

The new turret system will be fielded with the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), which is the Humvee replacement. The Armaments Center has developed a number of protective turrets for military vehicles including Humvee, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) and Stryker. Tens of thousands have been fielded to protect gunners against persistent threats.

In particular, the Objective Gunner Protection Kit (OGPK) turret, also developed by the same Picatinny team, currently is in use by every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as over 20 international coalition partners. The OGPK integrates well with the .50 caliber weapon along with the 40mm grenade launcher and other weapons. The Army has adopted the OGPK as the standard turret for the new JLTV Heavy Guns Carrier (HGC). 

"The absolute first priority with all of our turret systems is protection for the warfighter," said Kiel. "At the same time, we strive to provide the best solutions that enable our gunners to fight decisively." 

The Close Combat Weapons Carrier (CCWC) variant of the JLTV integrates the TOGPK 2.0 turret and TOW missile system.

"We develop our turret solutions in-house at the Armaments Center," said Narayan Bhagavatula, Product Director for Gunner Protection Systems. "This allows us to maintain full ownership of the designs and ultimately makes the system more affordable in production," he continued. Cost savings come from the ability to attain competitive bids for the fabrication of the turrets within the U.S. industrial base, both organic and private.

Project Manager Soldier Lethality manages the acquisition of the turrets, while the design activity is maintained within the Armaments Center. 

"The talent pool that exists at Picatinny is unmatched anywhere," said Kiel. "For example, our highly skilled machinists at our Prototype Integration Facility provide tremendous support in making sure that our designs can be manufactured easily." The PIF at Picatinny Arsenal includes state-of-the-art machinery for processing armor materials and generating sophisticated prototypes for test and evaluation.

Picatinny Arsenal, located in northern New Jersey, provides a wide variety of guns, ammunition, products and related services to all branches of the U.S. military.

Z6TeRUv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing has got quite the lift there over the original Bradley.  I'm assuming that's it in the high end of what it can adjust to.

 

Is this system equivalent or the same as what is on the Griffin III demonstrator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 2:13 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Seriously? Modular Jihayotas?

to17Hb8.jpg

 

This seems to be such a terrible idea, having a bespoke chassis and systems defeats the logistical and cost reasons of using a technical (y'know being cheap and with parts available on the market anywhere) while also intentionally limiting performance compared to purpose-built buggies like the flyer. You simply can't fit a bodykit that looks reasonably like a regular civilian vehicle on one of those buggies, otherwise they'd just do that instead of asking for a new vehicle that can look like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 6:50 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

 

Included in the FY21 budget request was 180 "Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System (VEESS)" as field upgrades for Abrams tanks.

 

Also funding for the XM1147 round to go into full rate production.

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...