Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

UGVs at UMEX-2018 (UAE, Abu Dabi)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3116735.html

 

5279656_original.jpg

 

Quote

   Serbian military-industrial association "Jugoimport-SDPR" showed robotic tracked platform. The weight of the device is 400 kg. In addition to optoelectronic equipment, it is equipped with weapons in the form of a 7.62 mm machine gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher. Controlled remotely, the duration of work from the batteries is at least two hours. Abu Dhabi (UAE), February 2018 (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a2

 

Quote

   At the stand of the emirate group International Golden Group (IGG) was shown an updated version of the robot Fantom, created by Ukrainian developers. The device weighing about 650 kg on a chassis with a wheel formula 6x6 and uses a hybrid engine. Can travel up to 20 km. Controlled by a radio channel at distances up to 10 km, or by fiber-optic cable at distances up to 5 km. As reported, the system is intended for transport tasks, including the delivery of weapons, ammunition, food and evacuation of wounded, as well as some combat missions, for which the "Phantom" is equipped with a 12.7 mm caliber machine gun, as well as anti-tank missile system "Barrier" (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a3

 

Quote

   Next to the first "Phantom" was shown a more recent development of Ukrainian engineers - Phantom 2. This is a heavier device weighing about 2600 kg also on a wheeled chassis with four-wheel drive with the formula 8x8. UGV is equipped with an installation B8V20-A, which is a 20-barrel unit for unguided 80 mm caliber rockets. In addition, it can also be equipped with a twin 23 mm automatic cannon. It is planned that this machine will be able to hit various targets, including armored vehicles, fortified points, the enemy infantry, etc., and also will be able to deliver the goods. The device is controlled remotely with ranges similar to the first version (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a7

MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System), already covered it in robotics thread.

 

a6

 

Quote

   The E-stonian company Milrem Robotics showed at the exhibition a new modification of its famous robotic vehicle THeMIS. The new version has been refined from the point of view of application in conditions of desert and hot climate. As a result, the size of the platform was increased to accommodate various equipment or combat loads, cooling systems, etc. (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

a5

Quote

   Australian company Marathon Targets showed their products - ground-based robotic target systems T30 and T40. According to the company's representatives, they provide more realism in carrying out various trainings in comparison with traditional stationary targets (c) Denis Fedutinov

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

compared to:

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

 

 

- I also belive the mantlet to be rather "thin". 380-400 might be a rather optimistic estimate. 350 mm might be closer to reality.

 

-I also believe that the composite armor does not extend all the way to the bottom. It might jut follow the Leopard 2 example shown in red:

 

strv122_hull.jpg.a273a315a831c6ca73fc884

(lower front hull could be spaced armor)

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

1421877579-puwno.jpg

in both cases the lower front hull could be spaced armor.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model. If the documents from Sweden have shown anything, then it should be that achieving a consistent level of armor protection is nigh impossible. The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all. Furthermore the upper edge of the armor modules likely (due to the reduced thickness along the line of sight) won't achieve the same level of protection - that's at least the case in the Swedish computer analysis of the different turrets. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

Defeating the JM33/DM33 APFSDS at 250 metres requires just 530 mm of armor steel or a special armor array providing equivalent protection. The Leopard 2A4 production model from 1991 supposedly has armor providing about 550 mm steel-equivalent protection at 50% of the tanks surface along the frontal aspect. The Type 90 being designed at the same time (being lighter, but also significantly smaller) achieving a similar level of protection to the contemporary Leopard 2 variant seems plausible.

 

 

What I find most interesting is this seems to confirm that the Type 90, at least for the hull, doesn't have a 60 degree frontal arc of protection. Odd decision, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model.

 

 

Yes - this was the intent. I was not expecting the small diagram to gather much attention outside of a General WT community who did not understand specifics. I highlighted only general areas of protection outside of RHA. Not specific area's of the protection and thickness composure.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all.

 

 

The actual composite blocks are covering the middle and top of the hull (Yes to later mentioning if Type10 and Type90 share general block placements). The bottom flooring is spaced steel - not the same level of protection. But of that to protect against explosive discharge.

 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.

 

 

 

Not the same. The tests were conducted at the primary composite blocks at the turret sides frontally. This is the primary defense against JM33. Mantlet is not protected by ceramic and other materials, basic lining only.

 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

 

Leo2turret_module_volumes.jpg.6358ca6e97

 

Without fabric covering , revels external block shell. I will be happy to aid if you have questions or needed context - I will give what I can without breaking privacy agreement.

 

D0CMBL3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

Because of BREXIT, it can be longer. The MIV program is an advantage during talks. They can keep pressure on both Germany and France. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the UK stops dicking around and also buys Boxers.

 

Inside talk is that the flat top version of this will (eventually) replace the Bushmaster PMV. 

 

The Phase 2 contenders were also asked to price up their 8x8 trucks for Phase 3 (IFV, previously notionally tracked). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12.03.2018 at 10:30 PM, Laviduce said:

 

My 5 cent:

Type90LOS.thumb.jpg.5523c2b08f87dfceb7b5

 

Type90volT.jpg.df27aa1ff468efa73b8f58e8d

Note: This is a rough estimate not includinding the upper part of the module. The inclusion might raise the volumes to about 0.40 m3 and 0.35 m3 respectively.

 

This image does not tell us enough:

AdYwS.jpg

 

or it might be more similar to the Type 10:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doubt.

 

Wiedźmin's job:

XoryQlu.jpg

 

And I fully agree whit this above. No special armour in corner - just turret roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M1 Abrams' TUSK belly plate is made of spaced aluminium plates and mainly works thanks to its massive thickness, reducing ground clearance by up to 11.5 inches (292 mm). AFAIK there is no other material, at least a photo of the belly plate in the TB 9-2350-264-12&P-1 shows no other materials.

 

The Leopard 2A6M, Boxer, Puma and other German AFVs use mine protection kits from RUAG, which are made of composite plates. The outermost layer is a steel plate, but it also includes on or more layers of plastic fibre to absorb the energy. In case of the Leopard 2A6M, the belly plate reduces ground clearance only by 50-100 mm, but is supposed to provide the same level of protection as the TUSK's much thicker spaced aluminium solution... however the Leopard 2A6M's plate is heavier. In case of the Puma IFV, the mine protection consists of two sandwich plates with more than 100 mm empty space between them.

0V6iZuI.png

RUAG's mine protection system. In theory it might also include ceramic materials against EFP mines, at least IBD Deisenroth is offering this as part of its AMAP-M anti-mine armor.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...