Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

 

8 hours ago, Newtonk said:

I had a photo of 401 Armored Brigade training with Achzarits equiped with Drakonit RWC, need to attach from desktop. 

 

https://images1.ynet.co.il//PicServer4/2016/08/30/7231981/72319660100282640360no.jpg

Share this post


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

@LoooSeR and @Karamazov this is an old photo of when that RCWS was unveiled. The photo I uploaded is the first one of it being operational and in an exercise. It also features other improvements such as a tall armored glass cupola.

Will you show it to us? 

Share this post


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

Will you show it to us? 

What do you mean? I already uploaded it. 2 posts above yours. If you talked about the cupola, it's going to be difficult because they are in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4083e832ae.png

Gabai, M. et al. 2017. “MEDIUM-WEIGHT COMBAT VEHICLES MINE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY” 30th International Symposium on Ballistics, Long Beach, California, September 11-15, 2017. Lancaster, PA, USA: DEStech Publications, Inc., Electronic product—9 pp.

 

@Mighty_Zuk

Recognise that?

Share this post


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

Well... damn!

What's the conclusion on that? How much does it protec? Design considerations? Etc.

Nothing, the paper is more about methodology and not so much about the results of that specific design.

 

The authors completely "namedropped" that design though. Some talk about simulations vs real life tests, and suddenly, *boom*, this is our scale model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot_1.png

 

This is supposedly a Merkava 4 tank damaged in 2014 during operation Protective Edge, in which a couple Hamas militants managed to infiltrate the Zikim beach area, which was full of dunes that made their concealment very easy. They then proceeded to plant a bomb on the rear door of the Mark 4 tank. It detonated but only caused external damage. The tank was there on patrol duty, but could not engage them because of the terrain that made it very hard to maneuver, and because the gun could not be depressed far enough (honestly no tank I know of could). They were later killed by helicopter fire.

 

And just another older image of a Mark 2 just for fun:

Screenshot_9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the 15th to 16th of May, a ground warfare conference will be held in Israel, where among the topics there will be a debate about future AFV programs in the IDF. It's not going to give it as much focus as there was in last year's conference, but I expect we will get a (relative) wealth of new details about the current running projects:

  • Barack MBT
  • Eitan AFV
  • Namer AFV
  • New howitzer (yet unnamed)
  • Carmel
  • An up to 8 ton light AFV to replace the M113 in some utility roles, and perhaps even some HMMWV.

 

I do not expect as many details as we got last year, and most will likely be repeated. But here is a small list I made of details that we still need to know about these projects, that weren't talked about in a long time.

  • Barack - Will it receive a new engine? Is it on schedule? Were the HMD tests successful? What is the status of the APS development? Will it have additional upgrades to the non-active armor, gun, or other internal structural changes?
  • Eitan - At what point will it be prioritized to get the next gen tech to replace current gen? i.e hybrid instead of diesel, next gen APS instead of current Trophy. 
  • Namer - When will it receive the new turret? When will it receive a new engine? And if it does get a new engine, would it be spare GD883 from Merkava 4, or the new hybrid engines of the Barack (if it does get them)?
  • Howitzer - When will it enter service? Is there going to be a tracked version for maneuvering warfare?
  • Carmel - Is there any progress with the bid for the cockpit design?
  • Light AFV - What will its designated purpose be? 
  • 30mm turret - At what point will it be integrated with the next gen Trophy APS instead of current one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 5:59 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the 15th to 16th of May, a ground warfare conference will be held in Israel, where among the topics there will be a debate about future AFV programs in the IDF. It's not going to give it as much focus as there was in last year's conference, but I expect we will get a (relative) wealth of new details about the current running projects:

  • Barack MBT
  • Eitan AFV
  • Namer AFV
  • New howitzer (yet unnamed)
  • Carmel
  • An up to 8 ton light AFV to replace the M113 in some utility roles, and perhaps even some HMMWV.

 

I do not expect as many details as we got last year, and most will likely be repeated. But here is a small list I made of details that we still need to know about these projects, that weren't talked about in a long time.

  • Barack - Will it receive a new engine? Is it on schedule? Were the HMD tests successful? What is the status of the APS development? Will it have additional upgrades to the non-active armor, gun, or other internal structural changes?
  • Eitan - At what point will it be prioritized to get the next gen tech to replace current gen? i.e hybrid instead of diesel, next gen APS instead of current Trophy. 
  • Namer - When will it receive the new turret? When will it receive a new engine? And if it does get a new engine, would it be spare GD883 from Merkava 4, or the new hybrid engines of the Barack (if it does get them)?
  • Howitzer - When will it enter service? Is there going to be a tracked version for maneuvering warfare?
  • Carmel - Is there any progress with the bid for the cockpit design?
  • Light AFV - What will its designated purpose be? 
  • 30mm turret - At what point will it be integrated with the next gen Trophy APS instead of current one?

What's it called and where I can I see live coverage of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, no new information was given about any AFV, with 2 very small exceptions:

1)They gave some info about the Carmel cockpit design - By Q3-Q4 of 2019 the 3 major companies involved (RAFAEL, IAI, and Elbit) are supposed to demonstrate their concepts to the IDF, and thus the Carmel program will end. After the demonstrations, the Carmel program will move onto stage 2 and will likely be renamed. 

 

2)The Barack MBT will not get a hybrid engine, yet. The Carmel will be the first one to get such an engine, and the time it will take for it to reach down to the Merkava-based AFVs is unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/34334

 

Apparently Israeli defense industries are in disarray, tens of thousands may lose jobs, and manufacturing is pretty much all American now. I'll try to make this as short as possible.

 

Context on the US aid to Israel:

  1. The past aid deal that will expire this year, allowed Israel to use 25% of the money domestically, and to purchase fuels. 
  2. Current aid deal removes the conversion of USD to NIS for domestic purchases, as well as the ability to purchase fuels. 
  3. About $300 million were used on fuels, and over $800 million for domestic purchases.

The big industries were given a very short notice on this, and they may lose over $1 billion in acquisition on a yearly basis. Small industries have no option to brace for impact, and warn that local production capability may be lost eventually.

 

But they also gave a few other details, that are relevant to this thread:

  1. Eitan is almost 100% made in the US.
  2. Namer is 70% made in the US.
  3. Merkava 4 is 30% made in the US.

It's also easy to notice that the more recent the AFV is, the bigger its share is in the US. This could mean that Israel might have some good chance of selling the US one of these, eventually. Especially for a Stryker replacement and NGCV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know about vehicles but;

 

Iron Dome experimentation and assessment for short-range air de- fense


The budget request included $38.0 million in PE 64020A for cross functional team (CFT) advanced development and proto- typing.
The committee understands the Army established six CFT pilots to examine how the Army could leverage existing resources and ac- celerate getting needed capability to the warfighter. The Army’s critical capability gap for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) remains protecting the maneuvering force and is aware the AMD CFT pilot is focused on accelerating delivery of a maneuver short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability. The committee commends the AMD CFT for getting an approved directed requirement for an interim- maneuver SHORAD capability that accelerated the original sched- ule by 5 years. The committee notes the AMD CFT is also review- ing other AMD capability gaps for the protection of fixed and semi- fixed sites. The committee expects the AMD CFT to immediately address capability gaps in the areas of indirect fire protection capa- bility and AMD.
Since 2011, Congress has provided over $1.5 billion for the pro- curement of Iron Dome batteries for the State of Israel, a system with demonstrated capability against a wide-range of threats. There is value in experimenting with the Iron Dome system through demonstrations to assess operational suitability for the fixed and semi-fixed site AMD mission, and M–SHORAD missions. Such demonstrations will evaluate challenges associated with inte- gration of the Iron Dome command and control system with the ex- isting AMD C2 system and sensors.
The committee recommends $68.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, in PE 64020A to support the acquisition of Iron Dome hardware and associated integration activities, for the operational demonstration of the Iron Dome system against a range of threats to evaluate issues associated with the following:

(1) integrating the Iron Dome launcher into a U.S. Army AMD architecture for complimentary support of fixed, semi-fixed, and M– SHORAD operations;
(2) re-designing the Iron Dome launcher to be compatible with the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Multi-Mission Launcher; and
(3) potential options for accelerating development of the Skyhunter missile.
Further, the committee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by April 2, 2019, on the Army’s plans for this experiment and dem- onstration. If warranted by the demonstration results, the com- mittee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a follow-on briefing on the advisability and feasibility of rapidly transitioning Iron Dome hardware for immediate use, with budgetary rec- ommendations and schedules for accelerated procurement of addi- tional systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 7:00 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mantis 4x4 ATV in the under 9 ton category:

 

853975201001591640360no.jpg

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

85397530991489640360no.jpg

 

85397540100098408300no.jpg

 

853975101001590640360no.jpg

 

85397500100798408277no.jpg

 

 

EDIT: To be fully unveiled in Eurosatory (mid-June).

Does the vehicle have a reason to look so funky?

Share this post


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

Yes. The dude who made it said he didnt like boxy cars.

Does this actually have to do with protection, or is it just for fashion? Because I feel a lot of armored car producers try to make their vehicles cool over practical in some cases:
Oshkosh-JLTV-side-profile-01.jpg
SandCat-4x4-light-armored-vehicle-ambula

crab-armored-vehicle.jpg

5435789_original.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
    • By Life_In_Black
      Not exactly the same concept as the WoT forums or elsewhere, I figured this would be the place to post something unknown so as to get others' help in identifying it. Could be identifying the tank itself, a particular modification, , where the picture might have been taken, a user or unit, etc. I'll go first:

       
      Obviously this is a Centurion with an 105mm L7, which is what perplexes me. It's not Israeli, as Israel didn't experiment with camouflage on their tanks until sometime in the '80s. And the presence of the 105mm L7 means this isn't during the Suez crisis in 1956 either. So where is it? And is it British, Australian, or some other country using it?
×