Alzoc

VBCI T40 at Canjuers (Nexter's promo video) :

Leclerc XLR firing sequence test :

Suffren leaving Toulon naval base :

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hervé-dermoune-974641183_toulon-jacqueschevallier-sna-activity-7059968934208245760-kLbj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

On 5/2/2023 at 7:29 PM, Cheburashka said:

How was the turret controlled/driven? By the rotation speed on this video(https://youtu.be/F4aXdDNLgUY) I suspect that at least the horizontal drive was electrically driven.

Given that it was a vehicle from the 50's I sincerely doubt that it was electrically driven. An electrical drive will be smoother and have more torque than an hydraulic one, but it won't be inherently faster.

The FL-10 turret (long 75 mm) was hydraulic so I see no reason for the similar FL-11 to be any different.

On 5/2/2023 at 7:29 PM, Cheburashka said:

Did the gunner and TC have a duplicate set of controls?

On that topic I won't be categorical, but I very strongly doubt it. The hunter-killer concept came much later around the 80s to 90s (Leopard 2, M1A2, AMX-40) and even later for Soviet/Russian designs. Keep in mind that the original concept behind the EBR dates back to 1938-1939 (The prototype wasn't using the FL-11 turret, but it already was an oscillating one) and was updated and put in production in 1951.

https://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/blindes-a-roues?task=view&id=78

FCS on tanks weren't even a thing back then (only on ships and some AA guns).

On 5/2/2023 at 7:29 PM, Cheburashka said:

What were the sights used by the gunner?

APX-L 852 x5,8 direct vision scope + 2 periscopes for situational awareness

2 Iron-sights (one for the commander and one for the gunner) for rough pointing of the gun

8 periscopes for the tank commander

https://www.mvcgfrance.org/le-b-r-panhard-mle-51-ou-la-revanche-de-la-roue/

As for photos of the interior, there are some of the 90 mm conversion of the FL-11 here, but the turret is in a very bad shape :

https://chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/liste-chronologique/de-1945-a-1990?task=view&id=41

12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

committing to the autoloader route (plus the issues that come therewith: potentially lower ammo capacity, bigger turrets and serious weight increase)

The lower ammo capacity (or at least the fact that you need to get out of the tank to refill the autoloader) is a common issue.

On the other hand that autoloaders impose an increased weight and a bigger turret is untrue.

The whole point of an autoloader is that it need less volume than a human loader (which need to move around and have some minimal breathing room). Less volume mean smaller turrets, which roughly mean a better protection for a given weight. The ability to handle bigger caliber and the improved resilience (you can always design a machine to work in a certain environment but you can't make a meatbag less squishy) are just nice bonus. Stupidly large caliber existed before autoloader were a thing and while handling was atrocious, that it required a stupidly large crew compartment to move around and that theresulting fire rate was abysmal, it could be done.

12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

for some reason, despite I don't know how many programs to test multiple prototypes (both built and computer-modelled), USAR is still reluctant to go there.

 

...Mayhap it's the resulting price tag that's giving them second thoughts, who knows.

All of what I said above is only true if you design a new turret around the autoloader rather than just add it to a previously manned turret. In this case it doesn't serve any purpose other than losing one less crewmember if the tank is destroyed. That's probably the main reason why the US army was reluctant to switch to an autoloader, it would have meant scrapping all existing turrets and replace them with newly built ones which is a huge money investment as you said.

However now that we are talking about replacing the loader with a drone operator (M1AX, EMBT, KF51) modifying an existing turret to retrofit an autoloader and reconfiguring the loader station into a drone control station can actually make sense. It would avoid going back to a 5 man crew and all the issues that come with it (more weight, bigger turret with worse protection, logistical issue, manpower issues, etc, etc).

At at time when everybody is talking about increasing ammunition production, here is a somewhat old (undated) promo video by Eurenco on their production of 155 mm charges :

Even if it was probably intentional (Look at our employee doing sciency stuff!) you still get the feeling that the production is rather artisanal and small-scale and that there is a lot of work to go back to a full industrial scale.

Officials (apparently) 3D models of the Jaguar, Caesar (6x6), Griffon and Serval by the ministry of Defense :

https://sketchfab.com/armees_gouv

With detailed crew compartment with the exception of the Jaguar.

From AD.net

VBMR Serval testing the new modular camouflage in snow :

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

That's the 120 mm HE M3M (page 35 of the PDF) :

https://www.nexter-group.fr/sites/default/files/2020-05/20180604 Nexter - Catalogue Ammunition.pdf

It can fuze on impact, delay and airburst and is part of the Scorpion modernization :

https://www.forcesoperations.com/amp/scorpioniser-le-leclerc/

Falcon ARCHANGE (Avions de Renseignement à CHArge utile de Nouvelle GEnération or intelligence plane using a next generation payload) in test phase :

Three FA8X ARCHANGE are slated to replace the two C-160 GABRIEL SIGINT planes which were in service with the French air force :

GABRIELs collected intelligence on Russian activity around the period when Ukraine retook snake Island and when the Moskva was sunk before being retired from service in may 31st 2022.

Part of their mission was taken over by Beechcraft King Air 350 VADOR (Vecteur Aéroporté de Désignation, d'Observation et de Reconnaissance) from the 10th of june :

Credits to @Bechar06 and @Hirondelle on AD.net as well as this article

Not strictly about space exploration but the closest topic :

https://satelliteobservation.net/2023/02/06/frances-space-commander-shares-lessons-learned-from-ukraine-and-future-plans/

Interesting read about space warfare as envisioned in the close future.

2022 retrospective of the DGA (bunch of stuff and only a part of it related to AFV)

9 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

loading is a pretty easy job to train, especially since Ukraine already has those Slovenian M-55S tanks in service. Logistics and maintenance will be pretty hard, and it probably won't be easy to learn the peculiarities of the Challenger's fire control system.

It's the only modern MBT I can think of that doesn't have independently stabilized optics for the thermal sight, instead relying on gun stabilization to keep the picture level.

That's the real issue (not the FCS or adapting to any quirk of the tank).

2 (3) parts ammo for the rifled 120 mm of the Challenger 2 will be hard to procure (I don't know if the UK are even still producing them).

Same for spare parts, I doubt that they are still in production. So in order to keep them running existing Challenger 2 (Either in UK or Ukrainian service) will have to be cannibalized.

That's the same reason France is reluctant to provide the Leclerc (minus the non-standard ammo). We only have about 220 of them running and the rest are used for parts (which once again aren't in production anymore). We need to make those we have left last to 2040 (and with the mess that the MGCS program is lately possibly even later). So any Leclerc sent to Ukraine would be almost impossible to repair once something brake down.

There is a reason the Ukrainians asked for Leopard 2, there are tons of them lying around in Europe (easy to source parts and ammo) and the repair facilities aren't that far from the border.

14 Challenger 2 is in itself a token amount. But it send a political signal toward Germany asking them to authorize Leopard 2 transfer and sales.

It's not unlikely that the US (and possibly France) will send a token amount of their own MBT as well in the future to facilitate Leopard 2 transfer.

20 hours ago, jetr1zzz_ua said:

So, can the AMX-10RC fire indirect fire? Because I don't understand from this message

Theoretically any tank can fire indirectly, but the firing table need to exist for the range you want to use and the crew trained for it.

Here is the firing table for the HE round of the 105 mm F2 (AMX 10 RC's gun) :

(Taken from this video which also contain the table for the HEAT round)

You can see that the table only goes up to 3500 m.

But nothing prevent the Ukrainians to develop their own firing table based on the characteristics of the shell (That Nexter can supply). The variable-height suspensions of the 10 RC could even help squeeze some extra range.

Found it by searching for the aircraft's number :

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/255494/9297

It belonged to the 41st Tactical Squadron (the emblem of the squadron has apparently nothing to do with the one on the plane) :

MiG-21 UM operated by the squadron between 1963 and 2003 if Wikipedia is right.

1 minute ago, Lord_James said:

Appears to be very similar to that first emblem. Is that associated with a particular squadron or just a generic portrait? 

The 306th but it has apparently been disbanded after WW2 so probably not this one :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._306_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

Any of these markings help identify her? 

No idea about the technical markings in cyrillic but the text in blue on the last picture is in Polish. No other language remotely looks like that (google translate say it mean something like Burnt residues emissison).

Best bet to identify it would be the squadron emblem seen on the first picture. Didn't managed to find that specific one but that bird seem to be a common theme for polish squadrons:

C-160 Transall retirement tour after 59 years in service with the French air force :

Leclerc, VBL and VBCI at the range in Romania :

Combined arms exercise in the Alps :

Likely since the UK received their last CTA turret last year and already have 270 turrets in excess since they cancelled the Warrior upgrade. They have too much of those guns in their hands.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/mod-receives-final-40ct-cannon/

They can't even sell the excess to France or Belgium since they messed with the loading system (making it different than the one we use) which created some of the issue the British had with the gun.

Best thing they could do is to equip more Ajax with the turret than initially planned but I think they are just trying to sell them on the international market.

I'm not sure of who would be interested in semi-defectives guns using an exotic calibre adopted by only three nations but they can always try to find a customer.

Maybe they could donate them to Ukraine?

Luftwaffe's roadmap to 2040 :

• 2023: NGF apparently renamed NGWS (not sure what the acronym stands for?) and start of the 1B phase
• 2028 : First delivery of the F-35A to the Luftwaffe
• 2032 : Eurofighter modernization
• 2040 : Integration of the F-35 within the FCAS bubble and the NGF/NGWS in particular

The last point is potentially a new major difficulty for the program :

Integration of the F-35 within the FCAS bubble is of course a good idea in itself and if it is merely making sure that the F-35 can communicate (Link 16 STANAG or something equivalent) with the other systems of the FCAS then this is fine.

But if a deeper integration is intended it may require to share the source code of the NGF/NGWS with LM (no way that it will be the other way round). Given that the NGF is intended to be a part of the French nuclear dissuasion ... well France will obviously flat out refuse to share the code with the US.

Wait and see how deep the Luftwaffe want this integration to go.

40 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That's exactly what Germany thinks about French behaviour in the FCAS & MGCS programs.

Of course there are shared faults, but the more this goes on the more I think that unless there is a pre-existing consensus, parliamentary systems are inherently bad at dealing with long term issues that require long-term vision and continuity of said vision (defence, energy, external policies, etc).

That the parliament can unseat the government if they think it is leading the country in a bad direction is normal and healthy. But that the legislative power can effectively nullify multilateral agreements made by the executive diminish the credibility of the political system.

Parliamentary systems force to build a consensus but they also encourage short-term views and compromising (in the negative sense) (We vote with you on this subject but in return you vote with us on this one. It's not coherent with either of our political vision? Who cares?) as well clientelism and regionalism.

I am aware that this is a very "French" view, biased and perhaps ignorant of the German political system, but we experienced parliamentary systems with the III^rd and IV^th Republics (1870-1940 ; 1946-1958) went through WWI, WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War with it and the lesson from it was "Never again" . The only exception I can think of is the British political system, which has the benefits of pre-existing consensus on important subjects.

Anyway, sorry for the rant

The Bundestag strikes again :

https://www-opex360-com.translate.goog/2022/11/12/le-bundestag-menace-de-bloquer-le-systeme-de-combat-aerien-du-futur-et-le-char-de-combat-franco-allemand/?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Seriously the amount of hypocrisy is something else.

What's the point of signing agreements when you know they won't be respected anyway...

AFAIK it's just an extension rod linked to the trigger