Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The Guardium with that kit was used in limited service in highly hostile areas, and as I understand also in airport security.

 

This one specifically was equipped with an HMG just to show you can properly activate it, so they didnt add a swivel mechanism on it. Just a feasibility test really.

 

The Guardium was since further developed and seems to have dropped that heavy armor kit, and recently was tested with an RCWS.

 

I think only the recent variants are in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Israeli military industrial complex may face yet another major shift.

IAI and RAFAEL have held talks in the past over their merger, and may renew them now in a move that could serve as a counterweight to Elbit Systems.

 

RAFAEL has technologies for ground warfare such as passive, hybrid, and active armor, turrets, short to medium range air defenses, precision guided missiles and bombs for land and ground, air-air missiles, electro-optics, aerial and naval EW, and even hard-kill protection systems for aerial vehicles and submarines. It can also contribute in its space engine designs.

 

IAI dominates the radar sector, long range air defense to ABM (up to ICBM defense), effectively also dominates the naval sector including with anti-ship missiles, and most importantly composite structures for aircraft and the ability to conduct very deep overhauling for aircraft and even production if needed.

 

A merger would allow these firms to essentially tap into all markets in some way, and become a strong bloc that prevents Elbit from trying to compete locally in IAI's and RAFAEL's core technologies.

It could thus become better prepared for privatization if needed.

 

Considering Israel's size, it needs a leaner more effective industry, with 2 giants being enough.

As it stands, both RAFAEL, and IAI, being state-owned, are not very efficient as they have an overblown staff.

 

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-new-iai-ceo-mulls-merger-with-rafael-1001242790

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2018 at 10:38 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

In fact, rear sponsons are of no use to protect section dismounting. 

Spz-Puma, Namer and Eitan (even the Griffon) are representative of the trend in armored combat vehicles design. To keep gross weight reasonable while improving crew protection, vehicles are now made with a survival crew cell surrounded by separated volume. Those volumes are now part of the protection concept. 

So, both Eitan’s rear boxes are permanent protection for the crew cell.

 

The straight rear ramp is a complementary advantage. With rear side boxes, it’s very hard to achieve a direct hit to the ramp. 

One can imagine himself with a weapon trying to sight the ramp and understand how close is the angle. 

You have other advantages :

- the hull is more rigid ;

- the ramp is lighter so the mechanism is more compact, easier to integrate...

- rear storage are larger. And storage volume is always an Achilles heel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Serge said:

In fact, rear sponsons are of no use to protect section dismounting. 

Spz-Puma, Namer and Eitan (even the Griffon) are representative of the trend in armored combat vehicles design. To keep gross weight reasonable while improving crew protection, vehicles are now made with a survival crew cell surrounded by separated volume. Those volumes are now part of the protection concept. 

So, both Eitan’s rear boxes are permanent protection for the crew cell.

 

The straight rear ramp is a complementary advantage. With rear side boxes, it’s very hard to achieve a direct hit to the ramp. 

One can imagine himself with a weapon trying to sight the ramp and understand how close is the angle. 

You have other advantages :

- the hull is more rigid ;

- the ramp is lighter so the mechanism is more compact, easier to integrate...

- rear storage are larger. And storage volume is always an Achilles heel.

You're of course right on all points. What I meant is that if the vehicle is attacked from one side and the troops need to dismount quickly, they will stack up on the other side of the vehicle, opposite to the attack's direction, and the sponsons will guard their exits. At best, they may expose their legs while moving straight to the side of the vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A female tank crew has just finished the pilot program and demonstrated the women are indeed capable of manning tanks. Of course, they are not the first as there are countries where tank operation is already open to females.

Still, congrats to them. 

And to remind you guys of the aspect they probably don't want to talk about; They're there just to replace men in border patrol roles while the combat brigades are doing the fighting.

Overall they seem to be doing a good job. Uniform's kinda saggy on them, and the loading is kinda wompy, but otherwise all's good.

 

By the way, I've noticed there's some smoke coming inside the turret, and a dangerous looking bunch of sparks. I'm pretty sure this is not normal. Anyone with some insights care to comment on that?

 

 

Share this post


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

Now that's a really cool box:

The one sticking out on the right side from our perspective, in case you didn't notice.

30953955_194334171185917_489520077818612

Hi,

On two computers I tried, the photo is just blank. Please would you try downloading it again?

cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Now that's a really cool box:

The one sticking out on the right side from our perspective, in case you didn't notice.

30953955_194334171185917_489520077818612

 

What is this thing, I wounder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the launchers themselves on Trophy - they seem have a shield (to protect the crew), a reloader, and a retractable armoured cover that covers the launcher. 

 

Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Looking at the launchers themselves on Trophy - they seem have a shield (to protect the crew), a reloader, and a retractable armoured cover that covers the launcher. 

 

Is this correct?

That is correct, although the armored cover is rarely seen in retracted position as it is usually completely removed when the tank's not parked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Thanks - looking at the Trophy installation on the Abrams and trying to see whether the armoured cover is fitted. 

It's not really necessary if you just don't load the thing, and only load it before a test or actual combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.co.il/amp/s/m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-gives-Jordan-an-IDF-Merkava-tank-for-a-museum-562330/amp

 

Jordan will receive a Merkava tank, probably Mark 1 as usual or at best a decommissioned early Mark 2.

 

Other than Jordan, there are now only 2 Merkava 1 tanks roaming free outside Israel. One in the Czech Republic, and another one travelling, being spotted at least in France and Russia.

 

This seems like a gesture of improving ties above all else. I believe 2-3 years ago Jordan took delivery of a squadron of AH-1Z Cobra helicopters free of charge.

Share this post


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

Other than Jordan, there are now only 2 Merkava 1 tanks roaming free outside Israel. One in the Czech Republic, and another one travelling, being spotted at least in France and Russia.

 

This seems like a gesture of improving ties above all else. I believe 2-3 years ago Jordan took delivery of a squadron of AH-1Z Cobra helicopters free of charge.

The one in Munster doesn't count? Or is it because it's an Mk. I ( the black sign on the lfp reads "Merkava Mk. I" ) which received some of the Mk. II upgrades? FCS and some ITAR parts got removed but it should be able to move on own power as far as I know.
NgKL4WrHh6EUdOjyeFETEkTRCjzyeuo5NM8KdElr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 I believe 2-3 years ago Jordan took delivery of a squadron of AH-1Z Cobra helicopters free of charge.

 

I believe they were AH-1S (single engine), not AH-1Z (twin engined, not operated by Israel).

Share this post


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

https://www.google.co.il/amp/s/m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-gives-Jordan-an-IDF-Merkava-tank-for-a-museum-562330/amp

 

Jordan will receive a Merkava tank, probably Mark 1 as usual or at best a decommissioned early Mark 2.

 

Other than Jordan, there are now only 2 Merkava 1 tanks roaming free outside Israel. One in the Czech Republic, and another one travelling, being spotted at least in France and Russia.

 

This seems like a gesture of improving ties above all else. I believe 2-3 years ago Jordan took delivery of a squadron of AH-1Z Cobra helicopters free of charge.

The Merkava 1, (updated with elements of a Merk 2) in France, isn't "travelling". It is on permanent display at the excellent French tank museum at Saumur, which I have had the pleasure of visiting.

 

cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

The one in Munster doesn't count? Or is it because it's an Mk. I ( the black sign on the lfp reads "Merkava Mk. I" ) which received some of the Mk. II upgrades? FCS and some ITAR parts got removed but it should be able to move on own power as far as I know.
NgKL4WrHh6EUdOjyeFETEkTRCjzyeuo5NM8KdElr

 

I could have sworn I heard of one at least visiting Kubinka, but I guess it hasn't really happened. But the German one kind of surprised me. 

First one I've seen abroad was in a Czech museum, and I haven't really followed the topic since then, until I was proven, same as here, that there was one in France as well. So Jordan gets the 4th one, unless someone wishes to tell me where the Mark 1 has also been.

 

2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

I believe they were AH-1S (single engine), not AH-1Z (twin engined, not operated by Israel).

Correct. Guess I pulled this out of an article with poor fact checking without doing a fact checking of my own.

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
×