Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Pics from the video:

 

  Hide contents

1.jpg

 

2.jpg

 

3.jpg

 

4.jpg

 

5.jpg

 

6.jpg

 

7.jpg

 

8.jpg

 

9.jpg

 

10.jpg

 

11.jpg

 

12.jpg

 

13.jpg

 

14.jpg

 

15.jpg

 

Overall, quite beefy. And the side armor modules finally got their ERA inserts.

Which turret they're going to apply? the same one the namer has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, asaf said:

Which turret they're going apply? the same one as the namer?

Yep, it's designed for both these vehicles.

 

As a side note, it seems now the passive armor (3 layers, one before the ERA modules, and 2 sandwiched between the modules, with the outer-most being rather thick on its own).

With the ERA it's definitely surpassed STANAG 4569 level 6 (though I remind that Israel does not use that standard unless for marketing purposes), but is that sufficient to reach that level without the ERA?

Share this post


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

But this one will has no turret. :(

Judging by how close we are to a full rate production (enters service in 2020 so production must start in 2019), we should see a turreted version very soon.

Share this post


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

 

FN MAG .50-caliber :lol:

I like when they substitute millimeters for calibre. “Corporal Old Mate mans a 50mm machine gun...” Ugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What books should i buy to get information on the pre-merkava days of the IDF and into the development of Merkava and Patton/Centurion upgrades? The 75mm French gunned Shermans and their performance and development are especially of interest.

Share this post


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

What books should i buy to get information on the pre-merkava days of the IDF and into the development of Merkava and Patton/Centurion upgrades? The 75mm French gunned Shermans and their performance and development are especially of interest.

Might want to ask @Marsh on that one.

Don't worry, he has been summoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dares summon the Marsh?  Oh, Hi Zuk!

 

Well there is very little in English. There is a wonderful book by Moshe Givati in Hebrew about the work of  Ordnance Repair and Upgrade facility 7100, from 1948-1996. Unfortunately, since I can't really understand Hebrew, all I can do is rock back and forth and lick the pictures .... If you can read Hebrew Toimisto, get this book.

 

In English Robert Manasherob has an excellent series of books covering the history and service of IDF tanks such as the Centurion etc. Michael Maas has an equally good series of books covering IDF armour, but they tend not to cover the historical development in as much detail, being more concerned with contemporary service. Still must buys though.

 

Not much else springs to mind.

 

Sorry

 

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/34655

 

Elbit is now very close to finalizing the acquisition of IMI, for  $522 million. A funny thing to remember is that IMI has only recently been tasked with an over $500 million contract to supply long range rockets (Extra) and short range ballistic missiles (Predator Hawk) to the IDF, which means that Elbit doesn't really pay a dime for buying IMI, as it gets all the money back on that contract (of course the net revenue is not going to be all that money, but production costs will be offset by maintenance contracts).

 

What this means is that soon enough there will be a private company in Israel that is far more aggressive than IMI, RAFAEL, and IAI combined, and capable of marketing its own AFVs. So offering, say, the Namer, or Eitan, now become much more viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2018 at 9:05 PM, Marsh said:

Who dares summon the Marsh?  Oh, Hi Zuk!

 

Well there is very little in English. There is a wonderful book by Moshe Givati in Hebrew about the work of  Ordnance Repair and Upgrade facility 7100, from 1948-1996. Unfortunately, since I can't really understand Hebrew, all I can do is rock back and forth and lick the pictures .... If you can read Hebrew Toimisto, get this book.

 

In English Robert Manasherob has an excellent series of books covering the history and service of IDF tanks such as the Centurion etc. Michael Maas has an equally good series of books covering IDF armour, but they tend not to cover the historical development in as much detail, being more concerned with contemporary service. Still must buys though.

 

Not much else springs to mind.

 

Sorry

 

Marsh

 

Are you talking about Michael's modeling books, going in depth into visual details for enthusiasts? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Even though the Namer here is closer to the photographer, I think it's safe to say it's noticeably taller than a Merkava 4M.

 

On 6/18/2018 at 10:05 PM, 2805662 said:

Regarding Eitan: is there any feedback on how the one-soldier-wide exit is considered by the users?

 

Haven't heard any complaints so far. 

Considering how the Namer and Eitan (and the Merkava) are built intentionally with rear sponsons around the exit, I think they prefer the added safety to the troops (sponsons shield them from fire as they exit) over a slightly quicker dismount.

Share this post


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

 

Are you talking about Michael's modeling books, going in depth into visual details for enthusiasts? 

 

Yes, very good books in their own right, but not rich in historical detail. Still very worth buying, but not really what Toimisto is looking for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a bad angle so here's a better one:

  • M270 with 122mm guided rockets called Romach.
  • Puma CEV (oddly they didn't show the Namer CEV which is already in service).
  • Eitan APC.
  • Merkava 4M MBT.
  • Namer IFV w/30mm.
  • Ofek APC.
  • D9 bulldozer.

98121629.jpg

 

The Namer is definitely taller than the Merkava, and the Eitan seems to be only slightly lower.

Share this post


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

Is the 30mm turret in production now?

Not as far as I know. 

It still requires testing with other components that were not confirmed to have been tested on the Namer and Eitan.

 

The Eitan and Merkava 4 Barack are scheduled to receive a system that displays a picture of the surrounding area on a helmet, and can interface with the turret's sights and weapon systems, by 2020-2021. 

So the Eitan's turret should be able to interface with it.

Tests of the helmet system, called IronVision by Elbit, were said to have been conducted for the first time in April 2017, but these were feasibility tests and no news were yet given on whether it matured enough for production or not, or whether it was even integrated on the Eitan. As far as I see, for now, it hasn't.

The Namer may also get that system, but again no signs of it happening yet.

 

I assume the turret will enter serial production by 2020-2021 when everything else is ready and together with the Eitan.

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 teams 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 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 were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia 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 is is offered separately, it’s 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 by 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 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:
       

    • 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
×