Mighty_Zuk

Changed domain. Hopefully this time it works.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Can you re-upload a first picture? For some reason i have 404 error now

Is that better now?

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Some PR video of exercises with Krasnopol near St.Petersburg.

For non English speakers:

Krasnopol is better than Excalibur, probably also Smart 155 and TopGun, but it's interesting they chose to refer to accuracy as being 80% accurate, even though that is not a real parameter for accuracy.

An Excalibur, for example, against 10x10m targets or larger, will have 100% accuracy, and then the accuracy reduces exponentially as the target size reduces. Even for slower, heavier, and theoretically more accurate munitions, that's the peak accuracy the manufacturers are willing to guarantee.

http://www.janes.com/article/78099/challenger-2-mbt-lep-selection-draws-closer

Quote

The 24-month Assessment Phase (AP) to determine the winning bidder for the British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Life Extension Programme (LEP) is due to be completed at the end of 2018.

Quote

The invitation to tender (ITT) for the Demonstration, Manufacture and In Service (DMI) phase is expected to be released around August 2018. Industry response is required to be submitted to the UK Ministry of Defence’s (UK MoD’s) Defence Equipment and Support organisation in December 2018 with a potential contract award in mid-2019.

They want to choose a winner before demonstrations? That's bold. But mid-2019 is kinda late. 

Yep, it's Trophy alright. 

Looking good!

Note: The smoke grenade launcher was removed and the gap that was usually taken by it was filled with armor. 

Notice the gap:

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to make a more serious overhaul. The Mark 3 could probably use a little rearrangement in its frontal section, some weight reduction wherever possible, and an improved frontal armor on the hull. I know it's more needed on the sides, but it can't be very economical to have the engine frequently damaged.

Some Mark 3D tanks in the Golan. But something interesting caught my eye, can't quite figure it out:

The tank on the very right sports the new panoramic sight, but also a strange object on its turret cheek. Some speculated it to be Trophy, but it's just nearly impossible to tell with that image quality. Can anyone with a good set of eyes try to identify it?

Just a note: The project to modernize a single active brigade of Mark 3 tanks with Trophy (among other things) was already funded, but no schedule was given other than a completion date of 2027 for a total of 1000 systems.

20 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

I wasn't speaking about permanent presence.

Okay. The map has in small letters a description that says the squares are permanent presence.

32 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Those "Iranian" targets are in majority just Syrian. They missed Iranian presence in Abu-Kemal and areas near T2. 

Wasn't Abu Kamal just recently captured (november)? That seeems like hardly enough time to establish permanent presence.

If shit goes down, there's at least a nice list of targets to monitor:

11 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

An Elbit RWS-H on a Stryker.

 

Where did you get that? I've seen that one years ago in a promotional video of Elbit, but the high quality picture indicates this is a new photo.

What's more interesting is that Elbit stopped marketing this turret when the UT30 Mk 2 came out.

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A turret redesign doesn’t generate more electricity, and we already discussed the locations of the Iron Fist units.

 

 

What do you think is wrong with the Abrams and Stryker ECPs?

Okay so about the Brad; What I've heard so far is that its current turret is incompatible with the Iron Fist (Let's just call it IF-LC from now on), so they're using an M2A4's turret. What this means? I don't know. Maybe the turret itself consumes less electricity, or maybe it has an improved capacity for electrical appliances. The electricity rant is more directed at the whole Brad, not the turret. That doesn't matter. What matters is that they have this new turret with new features, and somewhere down the pipe they have an A5 turret with a new gun and new stuff. And it's still cramped as hell. They say they only have money to upgrade a turret and not the hull, which is fine. But why not take the opportunity and think of something more long term? 

If they want to change the gun, sensors, and move a few things around, why not take a different MOTS turret, add their stuff, like the IF-LC, gun and whatnot, and at the same time even get rid of a whole bunch of problems. Maybe even change the medium term strategy for an APS.

What I'm proposing is to dump the A5 turret outright. 

BAE offered the Czech 2 variants of the CV90 Mk4 with 2 different turrets. One of them would be perfect for the Bradley:

It's a technologically mature product that could be fitted with domestic sensors and electronics.

Or if they want to go for a unitary APS for the whole army, they could go for something like this:

It's developmental, but it's already being tested on a number of platforms for the past few months.

The up-side is that they can just forget about the turret for a long while after that.

They could even increase the troop capacity along the way by using an unmanned turret.

The Abrams' ECP is the least problematic of the bunch. I have only few complaints:

1)Want a better engine? Great. Why not invest in hybrid propulsion even at the risk of slightly delaying the process? An engine procurement is a long term commitment. Especially on MBTs. I'm afraid they would barely hit their midlife point by the time some will already have made the switch. Other than pollution and fuel consumption, I could think of a few advantages such an engine might have. A tank could have a sort of a stealth mode while on the move. It was common to stop the tank, turn off the engine and turn on the APU, and stay cold and hard to detect for heat sensors. With hybrid propulsion you can still do that for a certain while, while moving. And at higher speed. 

2)Focus on incremental upgrades to existing components, rather than seeking new capabilities. An APS is a new capability. Good for them to finally accelerate this, by the way. A see-through-armor technology is a new capability. The UGV operation thing from an MBT, that's one heck of a new capability. An improved thermal sight is not a new capability. 

Don't get me wrong, electronics need frequent upgrades, even without considering their natural degradation. But other than APS, everything I mentioned is either being done too slowly, or not at all. And even the APS program (and I apologize Captain America for my language) seems to me a little half assed. They took the effort to give 2 divisions worth of tanks an APS and went for the most basic version of Trophy? In 2 years from now, the Barak MBT should be operational with a new generation of the Trophy. That means, it should finish a very long and rigorous series of testing by then. That is, if they intend to keep their promise to make a new generation of APS. Why not get to an agreement with the IDF and RAFAEL to export all tests of the system, or replicate them, inside the US?

What they are talking about right now is almost 4 years worth of production starting from the moment the Trophy starts being mass produced. That's 2 years of making an older generation system when a new much more capable one is both produced and rigorously tested. What makes this important for me is the fact that the US prepares for a peer enemy, which means tank vs tank battles are still very much on the table. So that new generation of APS is going to make a difference.

The T-14 is a generational leap over whatever Russia made beforehand. It's a generational leap over much of what the west has produced so far as well. And the Abrams' ECP program hasn't really changed since then. It's still very slow to add new capabilities considering the timeline for the NGCV is to produce a fully functional MBT within 17(!) years from now, whereas Russia is this close to finishing state trials on the Armata <---------->. That's short.

And onto the Stryker - Well that one is the most mysterious to me. The Iron Curtain APS is massive, and weighs more than any other contender, at about 2 tons if I remember correctly. Choosing any of the above mentioned turrets would strike 2 birds with 1 stone - modern, well armed turret, and a light APS that also matches that of another vehicle.

It just seems to me that whoever is responsible for the APS program could quite easily just settle for 1 unitary APS for the whole fleet AND get other rather urgent issues fixed at the same time, but chose not to.

Okay, that was a serious rant. I'm gonna go chew a rock to feel manly.

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Apparently I forgot to post that here back in July, that even looks like the crop I made.

Being Loosered is timeless.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

M2 with Iron Fist schematics. Looks a little unusual. Also a frontal launcher is in the way of commander's panoramic sight.

And they still want to go for a mere upgrade of the turret instead of a complete redesign that is long overdue.

Because when even the smallest, lightest, and least power consuming APS is at a point where it overburdens the turret and electrical grid, you know it's bad. Now they wanna add a 30mm gun in the same turret even though they tested proper, new turrets on the Brad, and there are now turrets available as MOTS products with integrated APS.

Kudos on pushing through a hastened NGCV process but I can't help but think how fucked up the current ECPs are on the 3 core platforms - Abrams, Brad, and Stryker.

6 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

Not stolen from French shipyard, 2/10.

Delivery is only by 2020, with follow-on ships delivered til 2022 I believe. So there's still a small chance it'll be stolen from a German shipyard.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/february-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5947-tkms-cut-1st-steel-of-first-israeli-navy-saar-6-corvette.html

Sa'ar 6 corvette keeping the Sa'ar tradition by keeping everything small, tight, and armed to the teeth.

29 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

the entire point of this vehicle as laid out in the article is to reduce manpower requirements as much as possible going so far as to simply remote controlling the majority of a bateries vehicles.

carrying spare personel as a failsafe as the pzh2000 did defeats the point.

Well the only thing they're doing in practice is just relocate the manpower to maintenance units.

But I guess on second thought, men who specialize in maintaining the vehicle will do so more efficiently, thus leading to another source of manpower saving.

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Test series of Koalitsiya

 I just realized why there are delays in the test series (operational capability in 2020 instead of 2019). In the video they said they tested a Koalitsiya for hermetic sealing but they were showering the Msta.

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

BMPT in production

Macron's coming for the parade?

Also, I'd just like to point out that I think it's completely retarded to buy BMPTs that are both crew-hungry and very limited in their niche when the T-15 is already on its way to become operational in 2020.

Some modern howitzers can indeed be operated by 2 but I believe the norm would still be at least 4 men, possibly spread between the ammo mule and SPH. 

I think the howitzer that Elbit's developing (and I sure hope they don't take another 10 goddamn years!) would be manned by 4-6 men just because settling for less would be a real shocker for the reserve artillery units that rely on crews of up to 10 per howitzer.

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

@Mighty_Zuk

 

Heard anything about this presumably steel core 5.56?

 

A second question is what round does the Israeli military normally use?

Honestly I dont know anything more than you do. 

All I could found is:

1)The round is APHC - Armor Piercing Hard Core FMJ-BT

2)30% more accurate than 7.62mm M80 bullets at 550m range.

3)100% penetration (i.e guaranteed penetration) of NATO standard 3.4mm armored steel plate at 800m range.

Just a small update:

The F-16 that was downed yesterday (10/02/2018 in normal date format DD/MM/YYYY) was at a very high altitude along with his squadron, as they were firing missiles at the T4 airbase from a very long range, which required them to fly high. Their high altitude exposed them to AA fire, and as soon as the missiles were launched, the airplanes dived and commenced standard evasive maneuvers. The downed F-16 apparently remained at high altitude and could not maneuver on time. The main assumption right now is that they were preoccupied (pilot and navigator) with making sure the missiles hit their targets. It's also being checked if they even received a missile warning.

47 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

WTF is wrong with their barrel metallurgy if they burst from "operating in too hot environments?"  Turkish twitter guy needs to come up with more plausible lies!

Yeah but it does seem to be caused from internal stress, not any external factor. Maybe they're half right, and they fired too many shells without accounting for barrel heating. Just a speculation.

49 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Seems like #Israel used a IAE Harop loitering munition (the "kamikaze drone") to target an Iranian commend trailer near T-4 airport in #Syria's Homs province.

Where did you get this info?

Probably they asked some foreigner for translation and he decided to troll them a bit.

1 hour ago, Serge said:

The price ?

Excessive. And paid in blood.

The 847th Armored Brigade gets the Merkava 4.

It was reported in January's issue of Yad La Shiryon, Israeli armor-centric magazine, that the 847th brigade will move on to the Merkava 4 tank.

Just a few points to consider:

• This is the 2nd reserve armor brigade to receive the Merkava 4.
• After this transfer is completed, it will become the 5th brigade to use the Merkava 4.
• This will make it equal in numbers to the Merkava 3 in service.
• Currently the armored corps is composed of 4 active brigades and 8 reserve.
• 2 are equipped with Mark 2 tanks, 5 have Mark 3, and 5 will have the Mark 4 (after the transition).
• The Mark 2 tanks are of unspecified type. The Mark 3 are split into 1 active brigade with the latest variant (Mark 3D Baz), 3 reserve with the Mark 3 Baz (without 4th gen armor), and 1 reserve with the original setup. The Mark 4 is split to 3 brigades with Mark 4M and 2 with Mark 4A/B.
• The model at hand is the original Mark 4, not equipped with Trophy.
• It is likely that they received ex-brigade 460th tanks (an instructional brigade), and the 460th brigade received new Trophy-equipped tanks instead.
• The process has only started with 1 battalion out of 3 so far.

Okay so these were the facts we know. The 460th brigade (which doubles as instructional brigade) currently has 3 battalions dedicated to training crews for specific tanks (plus 2 battalions for specialized courses like TC or instructors). 1 of them is equipped with Merkava 3, to train recruits for the 188th active brigade, and 2 have Merkava 4 to train for the 7th and 401st brigades.

This means that for the 847th reserve brigade to be fully stocked with Merkava 4 tanks, they'll have to draw 1 battalion worth of tanks from an active brigade that uses the Mark 4A/B variants. These are practically non-existent other than in reserves.

So if we take previous claims that ALL new tanks and AFVs come out of production with APS, as hard facts, then it means that at least one battalion of that brigade will have Trophy APS. And that means that by the time the last battalion will have to make the switch, the Barak tank will have to be operational with at least 1 battalion already, something that might take 2-3 years from now.

Moving forward. Because the 847th brigade will have at least one battalion of Merkava 4M, they'll have to switch all other battalions to the same standard, to avoid using different doctrines and drills on the brigade level.

And what this means, is that there will be a rather absurd situation of having both the corp's most elite tank driving alongside the crumbling Merkava 2 tanks that really should be scrapped already.

Now let's speculate on what happens AFTER all that: Before the 847th brigade can complete its full transition, the first Barak units will have to enter service. My educated guess is, surprisingly, not the 188th brigade. Yes, they're using the oldest tank in active service, but also there are confirmed plans to equip these tanks with Trophy APS. If they really cared about the reserves getting APS ASAP, they would give the 847th brand new Mark 4M tanks. That means they want them in service there for at least a while longer. So that means Barak will go to the 401st brigade. The IDF's facilities, producing 30 Merkava 4M tanks a year, make a brigade within 3 years. So in 5 years we might see an operational Barak brigade. Their Mark 4M tanks will go to one of 2 remaining Merkava 2 brigades. And after that, another 3 years to probably replace the last Mark 2 brigade's tanks with those of the 188th Mark 3D Baz tanks, which will probably be dubbed Mark 3M. 
Ok Zuk, breathe... breathe...

So in 8 years from now the Mark 2 tanks will be completely phased out, the entire active part of the armored corps will have APS, and 2 reserve brigades will have APS.