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

It was designed with protection in mind but it’s not useful for family of vehicles development. 

More basic shapes are far better. 

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 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • 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:
       

×