Serge

FNSS at Indo-Defense 2018
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/indo-defence-2018-indonesian-fnss-tank-prepared-pr/

Hey Fellas,
on Page 33 of this document on the AGS competition, a bid from Thyssen-Henschel is reported as the "TH-459L". Any clues on what this might be?

New Rheinmetall ADS video. Including tests on Leopard 2, Fuchs, SEP and a mock-up against a (overfly) top-attack threat

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). 
Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1


884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices.
 
 

cost figures from Appendices F and B:


things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17):
(there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment)

apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). 
 
 
...
btw, GAO's report  "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23:

and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):

A nice picture to start :

ZAHA

Trident juncture 2018 :
http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201810/25/60/f0205060_5bd170b7830c6.jpg
 
http://pds21.egloos.com/pds/201810/25/60/f0205060_5bd170c6c3582.jpg

Abrams MBT deserves a topic of its own.

" De tekniska studierna delades upp i kompetensuppbyggande studier och försök, konceptstudier samt projektstudier. Fysiskt skydd kom att prioriteras före beväpningssystem, ledningssystem och rörlighetssystem. Tre huvudkrav kom att bli konceptstyrande:
Skjutning under gång varvet runt (360º) med huvudvapnet Direktutblick för vagnchefen från vagnens högsta punkt Överlevnad för vagn och besättning vid en träff i ammunitionslagringen Vidare beaktades de typiskt svenska förhållandena som normalt resulterade i speciella krav på försvarsmaterielen – den korta värnpliktsutbildningen följd av korta repetitionsövningar (dvs materielen måste vara lätt att handha) och det faktum att materielen under större delen av sin livslängd skulle ligga i mobiliseringsförråd med ett minimum av underhåll.
 
 
 
Skydd
I projekt Strv 2000 tillmättes skyddet i vid bemärkelse stor betydelse – eller stridsvagnens överlevnadsförmåga vad avser skydd mot upptäckt-identifiering-träff, skydd mot verkan och skydd mot efterverkan. Kraven sattes mycket högt både vad gäller låga signaturer inom våglängdsområdena för IR och radar, men framförallt för det ballistiska skyddet. Dessa inkluderade mycket förutseende krav på skydd mot minor och takverkande stridsdelar.

Grundprincipen för vagnens uppbyggnad var ett minimiskrov i pansarstål som var tillräckligt tjockt för att kunna ta upp krafterna vid körning och skjutning. Det skulle också kunna ta upp de krafter som en yttre skyddsmodul kunde åstadkomma då den träffats.
 
I det fall den yttre skyddsmodulen använde sig av principen med ett spontaninitierat tungt explosivt reaktivt pansar (t ex i kompositionen 15/3/9) – effektivt inte bara mot riktad sprängverkan, utan även kinetisk energi – kunde dessa krafter på grundstrukturen bli relativt stora. De försök som gjordes mot frontalt monterade moduler med denna typ av skydd visade att det var möjligt att kraftigt störa en penetrerande pilprojektil.

Tanken var också att Strv 2000 skulle använda en stor andel keram i skyddskonstruktionen. Det faktum att den totala andelen keram skulle komma att uppgå till flera ton i respektive stridsvagn gjorde att ett det så kallade Skyddskeramprojektet startade upp 1988. Under ett par års tid gjordes försök med många olika typer av keram - Al2O3(aluminiumoxid), B4C (borkarbid) och TiB2 (titanborid) – men trots ett brett deltagande från svensk industri, FOA och FMV, blev det inte så mycket mer än en medioker referenskeram.

Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande.

Stor möda lades även på att åstadkomma en från besättningen separerad ammunitionslagring som skulle tåla såväl krutbrand som en detonation efter direktträff på en RSV-stridsdel med övertändning som följd. Den lösning som utarbetades fungerade och hade stora likheter med motsvarande utrymmen i Leopard 2 och M1A1 med så kallade ”blow off panels”, men hade en utvecklad princip för att förhindra total övertändning med total utslagning som följd. Skotten var placerade längst bak i chassiet. "
 
Translation:

" The technical studies are divided up into competence building studies and trials, concept studies and project studies. Physical armor is prioritzed over weapon systems, FCS and mobility systems. Three main requirements have steered the concept:
 
        - Firing while on the movie, 360 degrees with the main weapon.
        - Direct sight for the vehicle commander from the tanks highest point. 
        - Survival of the tank and crew in case of a hit to the ammunition storage. 
 
Furthermore, the typical Swedish environment is considered, which normally results in special requirements for defense materials - the short conscription followed by short repletion exercise (meaning that the material needs to be easy to handle) and the fact that the material in bigger parts of its lifetime will be located at mobilization storage with a minimum of maintenance. 
 
Armor:
In project Strv 2000 is armor of the highest importance - or the tanks survival chance against discovery - identification - hit, protection against impact, after armor protection. High requirements are sett for a low signature in the visual spectrum, for IR and for radar, men but most of all the armor. These include requirements for mine protection and roof armor. 
 

 
 
The principle of the tank construction is a minimal hull of armor steel, made strong enough to absorb the force when driving and firing. It should also be able to take up the force that a outer armor module would achieve when hit.

 
 
In the case of the outer armor module, the use of the principle with a spontaneously initiated heavy explosive reactive armor (composition 15/3/9) - effective not only against directed explosive force (I assume HEAT) but also kinetic energy - could these forces on the hull be reality large.

 
 
It was also thought that Strv 200 would use a large amount of ceramics in the armor construction. The fact that a big portion of ceramics would come to make up several tons in the tank in question, caused the so called ceramic armor project to be started in 1988. In a couple of years time a few tests were done with several different ceramics - Al2O3(aluminium oxide), B4C (boron carbide) and TiB2 (titan boride) - but even with a board cooperation between Swedish industry, FOA and FMW, the ceramics turned out the not be much more than a mediocre reference ceramics. 

 
Inspired by the armor solution chosen by the US tank M1A1, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with a layer of depleted uranium, a firing trial was held in Sweden against this type of material. The results showed a possibility of better armor performance if volume and not the weight was the restricting factor.
 
 

 
A lot of effort was put into producing the ammunition storage, separated from the crew, which can take a direct hit and detonation from a ATGM. The solution developed was similar to the Leopard 2 or M1A1 with their so called "blow off panels", but was also developed to stop a chain reaction from detonating all the ammunition. The ammunition was placed in the hull rear. "
 
I translated the section covering the armor for you guys. Though I do not see anything indicating that the front engine required longer side armor. The requirements state the coverage, regardless of a front engine.  Though the coverage required is similar to the M1A2 and Leopard 2's turret. 
 
I can translate more if anyone is interested.

for some reason the hull looks like KV-1

Time to break some of this down:
 

 
Projected frontal silhouettes.  STRV 2000 T is the familiar one, STRV 2000 O is another proposed configuration with a completely external weapons mounting:
 

 

 
Different configurations considered for STRV 2000, note that only one of the configurations had a 140mm gun.  Some of the others were based on the CV-90 chassis:


 

 
Side armor configuration of the STRV 2000:


 
"Band" means track.
 

 
Overall armor layout.  You can see that side armor was prioritized.
 

 
Design of the ERA.
 
 

A/4-68 Armor Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division was reactivated today, meaning the US Army officially has air dropped armor again.
 

 

from article "Advanced Integrated Propulsion Systems (AIPS) for Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT)" Feb/Mar 1983

22 BRM-1K and 16 BPsV. And all of them are currently modernized by WZM from Poznan - at least 5 vehicles are after that. 
 
The modernized version received:
- new optoelectronic head ZIG-T-2R
- SR HAWK (V)RE battlefield surveillance radar
- IR binoculars JIM LR
- Radmor RRC-9311 AP, AN/PRC-150(C), AN/PRC-117G and AN/PRC-152A radios
- Honeywell TALIN 5000
- MIMIC mine detector
- AP4C and DPO NBC detectors
- SSP-1 OBRA-3 LWR
- Berberys-C multispectral camouflage
- new passive night-vision vehicle devices
 
 

Abrams MBT deserves a topic of its own.

Wonderfull photos of polish "golden autumn" and tanks from 10 Tk Bde by press 11 "Lubuska" Armoured Division.
Photos made by Senior Staff Warrant Officer  Rafał Mniedło:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

Required dimensions for L400-3:


 

In a period where everyone is calling for tanks using APC chassis, a recall from the past :

An interesting change to the RFT Glossary has been released as an addenda (LAND 400 PHASE 3 – Mounted Close Combat Capability
RFT CASG/LSD/RFT0056/18 Addendum Number 04). 
 
The definitions contained in an RFT Glossary are carefully written (& debated robustly internally) prior to RFT release, as this Glossary becomes contractually binding for the subsequent RMA, and potentially into the acquisition itself. 
 
The change? The definition of “Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)”!
 
From “means a highly protected and lethal AFV with excellent cross country mobility able to lift an armoured infantry section of no fewer than nine infantry soldiers, consisting of three crew and six dismounts, that can fight onto an enemy position. The IFV will have the lethality to destroy as a minimum equivalent threat AFV, air targets, and enemy dismounts operating behind fortified positions or cover. It will be a highly survivable platform with an improved ability to survive the first hits from direct fire weapons, blast and fragmentation and then continue the mission.” 
 
To:
”means a Mission System that achieves aspects of the Mounted Close Combat Capability” (yep, no full stop)
 
Glad it’s not vague at all!

Huh. Australians Major General Kath Toohey & Brigadier Shane Gabriel front row in the left. At least they’re keeping up w/what the US Army is doing. 

AUSA 2018 Warriors Corner #19 Long Range Precision Fires Cross - Functional Team Update with Col. John Rafferty, Col. Chris Mills, Col. Will McDonough and Mike George
 
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/631880
 
58-caliber M109A8 test footage at the beginning of the video. Credits to Damian90 on AW forums.