Mighty_Zuk

Never quite understood the function of that V on the T-72 front. Can anyone explain?

Namer CEV is already in service. That's not new.

Yep, I have that picture saved from a very long time ago but I forgot about that part.

Lewd picture of a Mark 3. You can see the naked turret side. I thought it was completely flat like the Mark 4 but I guess I was wrong.

Thailand did it first with their M60, except with high quality logs.

3 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

^--- That turret doesn't look too bad...erm...

 

That's Tovarish-tier maymays.

Good news guys. RAFAEL finally made their Samson Mk II turret not entirely ugly:

10 hours ago, Xoon said:

How come Sweden was offered the Merkava 3?

 

Source:

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

I should have been more specific. The interview was specifically about the Merkava 4. Not 3. 

But it is interesting that the Merkava 4 was the first to be cleared for export, if we trust publicly released information, but on at least numerous occasions the earlier Mark 3 was already offered before the Mark 4 entered service in noticeable numbers.

I did not know however that Sweden was among the countries who were offered the Merkava 3. Sweden's and Israel's tank development bureaus had good relations, I assume, which might explain some of it.

I directly translated from an Hebrew-language defense website, so "detection" and "identification" can easily mix up. Should've noticed it before typing it in, so that's my bad.

Something that appeared briefly in the conference to which I linked in numerous posts, is the export policy of the Merkava.

Export to gulf states was impossible due to political issues. 

Export to Africa and South America was impossible because these were not ready for high-end products.

Asia-Pacific remains the best potential market but limited in number of potential customers.

And the best bit; Europe wasn't even considered. Yep. Aside from Turkey of course. But it seems the Merkava was never even marketed to Europe in fear of tensions with Russia, and instead only portions of the tank (sights, FCS, ammunition etc) were sold.

Singapore's Leopard 2SG apparently fitted with Elbit COAPS Commander's sight, said to be capable of identifying targets at up to 11.5km (2.3x2.3m?) in night conditions.

http://elbitsystems.com/media/COAPS_2016.pdf

And it seems their next gen IFV is also fitted with the COAPS.

First images of the Stunner 6th generation missile in its AAM version (evolved from SAM). In 2nd photo, the Stunner is on the right wing (left side from our perspective).

The range of the AAM is not yet known, but the specifications for the Stunner in its basic (SAM) variant are:

250km range. 

Mach 7.5 (terminal stage?).

Hit-to-kill.

Dual seeker (Dual electro-optical and AESA).

I believe that includes feasibility tests as well. Do note that the US Army should be conducting trials on an existing Abrams platform to test the feasibility of a new operational concept - drone operating from a tank. More specifically, have a crewman replaced with a specialized operator to control a wide array of UGVs and maybe UAVs.

It could be that these are connected.

I haven't been paying attention lately, but what exactly is the MPF?

Is it the supposed M1A3 or fills another niche like a medium weight family to replace the Bradley for example?

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Ewww, that youtuber. He is not too terrible as some others, but still, pretty lame.

I only posted that for these view bits. He's more of a Wikipedia narrator (literally his only text). 

8 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

At 1:13, bullshit, since when can Oplot neutral steer?

It's true, it can. Don't know since when exactly, but it's visible in test footage, which is plentiful.

e.g at 1:14:

A concept of a PzH 2000 based turret trainer system for Qatar:

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/russia-delays-kurganets-25-production/

Think the delay til 2021 was bad? It's getting worse. 

They're saying they need to fix more issues and that the BMP-3 is still a new platform. Not only that but the Russian MoD seems to be stuck in the past by saying the Kurganets-25 are too big.

If you can't read it because it requires subscription, just create an email here:

https://emailfake.com/7.fackme.gq/mer.mos

IMI debuts C-Lynx system which is a light version of the truck-based Lynx.

The C-Lynx can mount 8 tubes of 122mm Accular rockets, which are downsized variants of the 160mm Accular designed for the Lynx. 

Dubbed Accular 12, they maintain a slightly lower range of 35km and an accuracy of 10m CEP, as they are GPS guided.

Primary role for the C-Lynx would be pocket artillery for airborne special forces who at the moment can only transport various mortars via air-drops or sling.

ARV based on the Singaporean Bionix, but with some significant improvements:

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/singapore-shows-new-arv-and-leopard-sights/

As a bonus; the sights on the Leopard 2SG are being replaced by those made by ST Electronics.

They have made it futuristic-looking, but is a non-existing driver's visibility really worth the effort to make it good looking?

Forgot to add the summarized bit on the ATMOS (howitzer):

(copied from blog)

1)The new howitzer will have autonomous engagement as well as fully autonomous loading. A crew of just 1 person is required, as loaders and gunners aren't necessary. The turret will remain entirely unmanned.

2)Crew of 3 or up to 6 may be kept nonetheless if the IDF deems it more appropriate.

3)Each gun will be an independent fire unit rather than each battery. Fire could be directed via a remote Fire Control Center.

4)Testing will continue until the end of summer 2017.

5)Yet unknown whether it will be mounted on wheeled or tracked chassis. They say it won't affect the vehicle's firepower.

6)A new precision fire fuze has been integrated to allow cannon artillery a cheap precision fire capability. This would add up to 3 different arrays within the artillery corps to have precision fire capabilities. The fuze is made by IAI and dubbed "TopGun".

7)An artificial 8RPM limitation is in place as per requirements, but can be removed if there is sufficient ammunition.

8)The vehicle's computers will be able to select the appropriate shell, fuze, and charge (modular charges) according to the mission without any human input.

8 minutes ago, Xoon said:

So, the tank will have a exhaust out the side like the Merkava? 

 

And I guess the step is where to thick roof armor begins?

The exhaust might be stretched to the back to lower thermal signature, or directed at the ground and is hidden behind the side skirts.

Maybe that's where it begins, and maybe the UFP will also act as additional roof armor against top attack missiles that always come down at an angle. To be fair, I have no idea what these pairs of squares (on CEV, recon, and laser AD vehicles) on the front are. 

General characteristics for the Carmel vehicle:

-Halving the weight relative to current vehicles. The goal is 35 tons without compromising protection. A lighter platform will better navigate inside tight urban areas.

-Automatic identification, jamming, and destruction capability for every direct threat on a tank (except kinetic). 

-Increased protection, and significant reduction in the vehicle's signature (visual, thermal, noise etc).

-Real time communication between all surrounding vehicles and units, and ad-hoc communication network for sharing targets.

-More advanced weaponry and ammunition than those currently existing. Hinted non-conventional guns.

-Advanced materials and transparent armor.

-Hybrid drive, smart energy management systems.

-Universal platform.

-Cyber protection for the communication and computerized systems inside the vehicle.

-Protected crew capsule with 3-person capacity.

-2 man crew. Third being a platoon or company commander with equipment to control unmanned assets.

-Dual controls for all crewmen to allow replacement of a crewman without leaving one's station.

-Medium caliber armament of unspecified type. Likely above 30mm and around 40-60mm.

5 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Whats the deal with the windows?

Periscopes, and they're backup for when the HMDS fails. Because the Carmel in its main version is meant to be better optimized for urban warfare, which is increasingly getting dominant by the day, it needs a wider view angle. But I think they'll just ditch the periscopes and keep the vehicle's top sealed to maintain a high level of top protection.

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

So, this rendering is practically useless to get any information on the new AFV?

 

Does not look like the 3D artist knew anything about AFVs.  Did he place the turret above the engine?

Where are the exhausts?

Is the tank cramped, or is the angle just weird on that soldier?
Is the tank small with tiny tracks, or huge with normal size tracks?

Where are the hatches?

 

 

Not really sure what the point of this 3D model is.

The engine will be up-front as far as I understand. The turret will supposedly be above the crew capsule (3-man capsule but crew of 2).

The exhausts should be at the front.

It will be smaller than a Merkava 4 for sure, but not cramped. Its crew capsule will actually be very spacious, with a room for 1 extra person. I believe the angle is just off, because it's a computer simulation. So scaling might be half-assed.

Hatches don't exist on this vehicle because it's believed that hatches prevent consistency of the armor, and will be a weakspot. So crew exit and entrance will be from the rear, I assume. I just don't know why they haven't drawn a door on it. Probably just a mistake.