Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Something similar is already manufactured in slovakia. It is especially designed for demining, so its more durable than a barely modified skid-steer loader.

002.jpg

 

http://www.bozena.eu

 

Especially designed platforms are more expensive and miss the whole point of expendability. What you're looking at here is not just a modified skid loader. That was an older variant meant for tight urban areas where the autonomous 65-ton D9 wouldn't pass.

Spoiler

49912505.jpg

 

10083255.jpg

 

21148888.jpg

 

The new version is based on the IAI's Robattle, a modular autonomous UGV for all sorts of missions. This makes it cheaper, which makes the whole concept of UGVs more viable.

 

You can see it in a more typical dressing here:

Spoiler

 

 

And completely naked here:

Spoiler

 

 

I also wouldn't call it 'barely modified'. It is made to be autonomous, not remotely controlled. Sure, both are unmanned, but the difference is quite immense. A remotely controlled vehicle requires frequent input of an operator, and even a dedicated operator to operate just one vehicle. An autonomous vehicle can have little to no input, and allow an operator to control a whole fleet, and not just one vehicle.

Share this post


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

https://www.janes.com/article/83690/idf-to-test-iron-fist-aps

 

Extremely doubtful the Trophy-HV will be going on the Eitan, if the IDF is testing the Iron Fist-LC

This is old news. Several months old, and I posted about this in this thread when it was reported.

 

There are several things many forget when looking at Israel's MIC's products.

Everything that is made by state-owned companies - Rafael, IMI (which will soon be privatized), and IAI, is developed first and foremost for the IDF, and only later is modified for export.

 

2nd to remember is that the Iron Fist was tested for every platform that now has the Trophy. This includes the Namer.

In the future, the Iron Fist Heavy will be the basis for a future APS to go on every platform considered heavy past 2020. But it will not be related to the IF-LD, so I give it very low chances of being selected for the Eitan.

Share this post


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

Everything that is made by state-owned companies - Rafael, IMI (which will soon be privatized), and IAI, is developed first and foremost for the IDF, and only later is modified for export.

 

The IF-LD was developed with the IDF in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MRose said:

 

The IF-LD was developed with the IDF in mind?

Not necessarily, but the Iron Fist project was developed for the IDF, and any derivative may have been developed for export, though not necessarily. 

The IDF showed interest in procuring lighter iterations of existing APS, but was unable to do so because of a lack of fund.

As of the end of 2017, Rafael is contracted to provide 1,000 systems until 2027 for frontline vehicles only, which is MBTs, APCs, IFVs, CEVs, and that doesn't leave much for the lighter vehicles.

 

It is however very possible that the IDF will pursue some form of APS for its new, barely talked about 8-ton APCs, if it will deem it favorable over autonomous recon vehicles.

Share this post


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

It is however very possible that the IDF will pursue some form of APS for its new, barely talked about 8-ton APCs, if it will deem it favorable over autonomous recon vehicles.

 

You have some sources? That seems like a death trap

Share this post


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

 

You have some sources? That seems like a death trap

Here:

https://news.walla.co.il/item/2855741

 

And minor correction: 12 tons.

This stands in line with the Gideon plan that says it pretty blatantly that due to budgetary constraints, the spearheading troops will get the best available gear while the lighter supporting formations will get the cheaper stuff. A 12 ton MRAP is cheap. Definitely cheaper than an Eitan or a Namer. The IDF cannot afford making thousands of Namers.

Share this post


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

Here:

https://news.walla.co.il/item/2855741

 

And minor correction: 12 tons.

This stands in line with the Gideon plan that says it pretty blatantly that due to budgetary constraints, the spearheading troops will get the best available gear while the lighter supporting formations will get the cheaper stuff. A 12 ton MRAP is cheap. Definitely cheaper than an Eitan or a Namer. The IDF cannot afford making thousands of Namers.

 

That seems more possible, but the article is from 2015 so is it possible plans have changed? I guess if you have a 1/2 person capsule that would provide enough protection, but what role would this fill? Guarding the flank and preventing infiltration? I thought the Eitan buy was suppose to be huge.

Share this post


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

 

That seems more possible, but the article is from 2015 so is it possible plans have changed? I guess if you have a 1/2 person capsule that would provide enough protection, but what role would this fill? Guarding the flank and preventing infiltration? I thought the Eitan buy was suppose to be huge.

This is something close to the JLTV in its niche.

Plenty of utility work that the M113 currently does where you dont need a 35 ton Eitan.

Share this post


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

Plenty of utility work that the M113 currently does where you dont need a 35 ton Eitan.

 

On 10/10/2018 at 1:46 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

It is however very possible that the IDF will pursue some form of APS for its new, barely talked about 8-ton APCs, if it will deem it favorable over autonomous recon vehicles.

 

Definitely a possibility, but I don't see the IDF using it in a dangerous role over let's say a Robattle.  I'd figure it will be something along the lines of a smaller Griffon or M-ATV, given Plasan is Israeli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cornerstone has been placed in the Tziporit industrial park in Nazareth Illit, as the IDF plans to relocate MASHA 7000/7100 tank production and maintenance factory up north, and expand the compound to include the production of the new Eitan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43880065_2106188709633488_54492758560001

 

One more thing, my dudes. I just found a drill order for tank crews on transporting infantrymen (and if it's a standard drill, it means they're regularly practicing it).

 

The manual says 1 passenger can board without any modifications.

3 can board with 1 ammo rack removed.

And 5 can board with both ammo racks removed.

 

So all the imaginary numbers suggesting 6 or 8 passengers are simply untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen-grab from that video, showing about 60 Merkava and Namer hulls awaiting assembly. The annual output of that factory has been 30 of each type, and with the expansion of the factory as part of its relocation, they should be able to produce large numbers of Eitan vehicles without slashing Merkava and Namer production, at least until 2027.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

I am asuming that is the primary paint coat for the Eitan. It definitely isn't standard IDF olive grey. Although strangely , it has the basalt non-slip chips applied and that is done after the primer. Hmmm

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 LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
×
×
  • Create New...