Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS.

Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

Share this post


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

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program.

 

Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas.

The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas.

 

Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. 

 

If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies.

 

Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava.

 

The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
15 hours ago, MRose said:

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program.

 

Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas.

The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas.

 

Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. 

 

If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies.

 

Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava.

 

The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared.

 

Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
32 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared.

 

Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.

 

There are higher budget priorities then a heavy MBT, a FCS solution might make a comeback which would be advantageous for the Carmel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image quality of a thermal visor on the Merkava 4 at 9.5km.

(a member on Otvaga asserts that the thermal visor is green instead of black and white to ease the strain on the eyes, and not a simple night vision device).

GCB6M.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 5:42 PM, SPARTAN ARMED said:

What happen to the hybrid mrap ! and i see pics that tzahal use sufa jeeps inside cities palestinian cities it will be more safe with a golan mrap.

 

The Sufa is used in non-threatening areas, but you wont see it driving a lot in hostile cities.

You may occasionally see it driving around Gaza with crowd dispersal means though.

 

In the MRAP role, the IDF so far has the Ze'ev (Wolf), seen in the 4th picture.

 

Currently the IDF is looking for an MRAP in the 8 ton category as a 3rd line supplement to the Namer and Eitan.

Search for such an MRAP began somewhere around 2014, but progress is slow because the main focus right now is on the Eitan, turreted Namer, and the new howitzer, all costly projects that are developed simultaneously, but with no budget hikes to compensate for it properly.

So it's possible we won't see any meaningful progress on MRAPs until the end of 2020.

 

The MRAP you see in the 1st photo, taken from a recent video from the maintenance facilities of the IDF, is not an indicator of meaningful progress or an intent to build it en mass. Even as far back as 2014 the IDF was testing a Wildcat MRAP by IMI in MEDEVAC configuration, with no decision on purchase so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In the MRAP role, the IDF so far has the Ze'ev (Wolf), seen in the 4th picture.


Currently the IDF is looking for an MRAP in the 8 ton category.

 

Wolf is already a 8 ton MRAP APC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. I was looking at a couple different vehicles while writing this. The Ze'ev is definitely not an MRAP, and its protective qualities are limited to small arms fire only. 

It is very useful for the West Bank and patrols here and there, but overall it's not something the IDF wants to equip its maneuvering forces with. It goes to regional units.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather bizarre image I found in another forum.

A vision block above a hatch?

Not really sure how it helps, as it cuts into the armor now, leaving a vulnerable spot above the TC's head, and Mark 4 tanks are supposed to be getting the IronVision anyway.

Except this one specifically does not cut into the armor and seems to be just placed above the hatch without any visible attachment points. So who knows.

11.jpg

Share this post


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

It’s a LIC kit. 

Mk3 can have the same dome commander hatch. 

It's hardly comparable to the Mk3. The Mk 3's hatch is thin like in every other tank, and manually moved. So it's easy to install a new hatch there. 

The Merkava 4, however, has a very thick turret roof armor, and the hatch is of the same thickness as the armor, thus requires a special mechanism to lift it. To install such a hatch, you'd have to replace the whole thing, and create quite a serious vulnerable point in the armor. 

 

It should, however, be noted that this is meant for instructional purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk3 LIC commander hatch is vulnerable too.

it’s so complex to change the hatch, it requires a crane. 

But maybe, it’s something else. Do you have any other idea ?

Share this post


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

The Mk3 LIC commander hatch is vulnerable too.

it’s so complex to change the hatch, it requires a crane. 

But maybe, it’s something else. Do you have any other idea ?

With the Mark 3 it's a compromise in protection that is built in and thus accepted.

 

I think we're only going to see these in the instructional unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security-q1_2019/Article-452dae857443961004.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=1434139730ΣÏÏαÏιÏÏÎ¹ÎºÏ ÏÏημα ÏÏα αιγÏÏÏιακά ÏÏνοÏα (ÎÏÏείο)As usual idf use only jeeps on border with egypt and they destroy one even  egyptians use real MRAPs but they destroy also by IED so in the future there going to use better protection the egyptians are create even tunnels under suez.

Share this post


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

As usual idf use only jeeps on border with egypt and they destroy one even  egyptians use real MRAPs but they destroy also by IED so in the future there going to use better protection the egyptians are create even tunnels under suez.

 

Do I really need to explain again that the IDF IS getting MRAPs?

 

The Egyptian border is not dangerous enough to deploy current heavily protected vehicles.

This incident is very much an abnormality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For patrol mission in  medium and high-risk area, the Oshkosh M-ATV (already armored by Plasan) coupled with IMI Iron Fist LC would be a perfect fitted for the IDF. The M-ATV would advantageously replaced the up-armored HMMWV in IDF service which are not deemed safe enough to patrol the Lebanese border anymore or any dangerous place for that matter and force the IDF to use NAMER instead.

 

There is already a clear expectation that the IDF would procure the JLTV (Oshkosh L-ATV) and since the M-ATV is an up-armored variant, it would be a natural process. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste ressources on R&D while it is better need elsewhere. And it would still leave a space for a custom IDF-tailored MRAP APC.

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...