Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
Hardly. The APS is the single most cost effective piece of tech on a tank. By a very long shot.
-
Part of the mobile command center, from the video I linked earlier. The Ofek does the data relay job.
-
You know you can just turn them off, right?
-
In the next 5 years no. In the next 10? Nobody knows.
-
Fielding of T-14 is not going to happen soon, and if you survey this forum a bit better you'd know that I'm most vocal here about Russia's MoD's intents to freeze all projects for new platforms (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang). But eventually they will start making them.
-
The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon. The IDF also seems confident enough with the Iron Fist to have it fully operational on a Merkava tank by 2021. And when I say "by 2021" I mean that by the end of 2021 the first battalion should receive a full shipment of Merkava 4 tanks with the system, after it has been in a state of FRP since at least late 2020, which in terms of military procurement again, is very soon. Next in line are going to be the US who have at least shown intent, and made some progress by pushing forward the MAPS project that will allow easier retrofitting. Then the Aussies will follow suit, and later on the Franco-German alliance will show something. Historically, at least most battles have been very one sided. You''d not want your lighter less capable troops to fight the enemy's best, but you also don't want to fight their best if you can pick off their lighter more vulnerable assets first. This is among the many reasons why distributed firepower is essential. When even support elements are packing serious anti-tank capability, you'd want to have some protection to gain back the confidence.
-
General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.
Mighty_Zuk replied to LoooSeR's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Not sure HIMARS is something you'd want to give to an unmanned vehicle. -
The turret is a unique development by the Israeli MoD, thus not offered for export unless SIBAT sees it fit. However selling such turret in a G2G deal is unattractive, especially when the market is so saturated. RAFAEL is marketing a very similar turret named Samson 2, and is currently pushing it in Australia and already selling it in Europe.
-
Hybrid and high intensity are pretty much the same threat set and require the same preparations in terms of tech. Just a different pace of things. Even the largest and most advanced regular armies cannot deploy MBTs to every combat area, which is why flanking and shit still happens and always will happen, and they have ATGMs distributed across a whole lot of platforms with varying combat capabilities. So even when going against Russia or China or whatever, the top threat is going to be ATGMs. Especially once they go past 2nd gen ATGMs. But it's not going to stay strictly anti-ATGM. By 2021 there will be two serially produced MBTs with APS that can defeat KEPs. By 2025 I assume the number will grow to 3 or 4. By 2030 it will be 5 at least. It's not a marginal upgrade either. An APS is a force multiplier, and if you look at it on the brigade level, or even division level, you got a formation that can stomp any similar sized formation. How does it add to logistics? It's literally the same system, except it's fastened to the hull or turret in a different way. How does it change training? How does it change procurement costs?
-
Maybe 10 years ago. But right now, they're being pretty open about a focus on warfare against a near peer enemy, which could mean anything from hybrid warfare to high intensity warfare, so MaxxPro MRAP trucks are out, and mechanized units are in. First, and again, logistically there is no drawback in having both a hull mounted and turret mounted APS. Second, the main advantage is you can go hull down and have the turret protected, as your sensors and shooters (radar and interceptor launcher) are within LoS of the threat and not concealed by earth. Another advantage is that you can entirely (if the integration is properly made) avoid additional width or avoid compromising some of the protection, or both.
-
And where does it say specifically that it has the HV version on the turret?
-
It is in my understanding that SAAB no longer offers the LEDS-150 because their partnership with Denel ended.
-
Yeah, I meant the Eitan and Namer have the same turret, but their Trophy version is not yet fully known. You told MRose that the Trophy Lite (offered for the Stryker) is not the one used on the Namer/Eitan's turret.
-
From an exhibition: Namer: Eitan: Achzarit (aka 'bolt simulator'): Puma: Merkava 4M:
-
We don't know that one for sure yet. The turret for the Namer and Eitan may well utilize elements from, if not the full Trophy Lite. After all, the whole purpose of Trophy Lite is to fit on a medium turret. The Trophy HV also did not go without changes, and the marketing could definitely shift, by 2020, to the following: Trophy HV - Full spectrum defeat incl. KE. Trophy Lite - Anti-SC.
-
That one will be difficult to find again, but I'll see what I can do.
-
It appears that the MCT-30 either cannot accept an APS, or will have a very hard time doing so. BAE is offering its CV90 Mark IV IFV to numerous customers in 2 versions. One version using the MCT-30 turret without an APS, and one with an in-house developed D-series turret with an integrated APS. The main difference, though, is that the MCT is unmanned while the D-series turret is manned. I believe the main issues were that the MCT-30 was too small and had low power output for external systems. This is the same problem the Bradley faces right now (albeit in a different magnitude). If BAE could not integrate the Iron Fist LC, which is tauted as the least power consuming system out there, and definitely the smallest one, on the MCT-30, then it has quite a problem my dude.
-
But funds for a turret clearly exist. They went with the MCT-30 first, which is fine even though they were already committed to the APS program. Now they spent even more money integrating that same turret on an ACV, which is a bad call IMO. They only have one brigade so far getting that turret. It's still not beyond the point of no return to switch to a more capable one. The way I see it, the US Army is taking a somewhat of a British approach by trying to score short term savings by undermining long term efforts, while I believe they should take the hit once, and save big time in the long term. EDIT: Come to think of it, it may be best for the US Army to go for just low cost incremental upgrades to the Bradley. As the OMFV gets preferential budgetary treatment, the idea that an AMPV will ever replace a Bradley seems unlikely.
-
It's probably a stupid question but.... Why not move some of the Bradley's APS funds to fast track the AMPV's own APS, stick a new turret that already has an integrated APS on it, and call it an M2A5?
-
So that basically nails down the APS contenders to Elbit and Rafael, offering the Iron Fist and Trophy respectively. Farewell ADS...
-
Also, @LoooSeR I forgot to mention. Hezbollah's name is Hezbollah. Not "Al Muqawama". Muqawama literally means "resistance", which may refer to any terrorist group that sees itself as a resistor to something, thus when you say "Muqawama" you can refer to practically any group that internally uses that name for itself, like Hamas, PIJ, or Fatah, or any of the Syrian terrorist groups for that matter, such as the FSA.
-
How do you know it's 4-round? Did you ask a representative? Because previously it was said to be 3-round launchers (although the design itself permits any amount of ammo).
-
An M1A3 might as well be an entirely different vehicle based on technologies developed as part of the NGCV's OMFV project (M1A3 is already part of NGCV). Otherwise why not call it M1A2E, or M1A2D1? I think it's fairly fair considering how the naming convention has changed since the cold war. An ECP phase today is bigger than a difference between the A1 and A2. The naming today suggests a far smaller upgrade than reality, and the naming during the cold war suggested a far greater upgrade than reality.
-
Aside from the really stupid looking, and detached from reality 'model' (i.e they think a vastly different MBT would look nearly identical), the expectations are fairly okay. The gun will definitely be replaced. Because why not? There is a need in added power that is not just incremental. Modular armor became the norm so even if the internal structure isn't changed, the layout should at least change. Autoloader and encapsulation of the crew mean the turret will likely be unmanned, which means it will indeed be smaller. And they do need that autoloader if they want to proceed with the robotic wingman by having a 3rd crewman do the group control. Smaller turret and new wiring technologies also mean weight can be reduced quite drastically as well. Light cannon though? Idk. A jamming system could work, but for a hard kill they can definitely use a 0.5" cal HMG.
