Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

alanch90

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    372

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by alanch90

  1. alanch90
    @LoooSeR can you explain this? "Изделие 305 внешний вид уже не секретен, в следующем году надеются получить экспортный паспорт и показать на выставке."
  2. alanch90
    It's a little curious choice to demonstrate the Parallax on a BMP-3 first. If anything, there are tons of new AFVs with unmanned turrets that can benefit much more from this technology (and also they already have built in 360 deg camera systems, its just a matter of adapting the software and plugins in the visor). As for the visor it seems just like a commercially available VR visor right? It should have a mounting system integrated into tank crew helmet, just like the infantry mounts NVD devices to their helmets. Lastly, i like the BMP 3 Manul very much. @LoooSeR could you please translate what it says in this picture? It's too pixelated for Google Translate.
  3. alanch90
    True. Although we can't get a good look on the actual projected bustle size either. My bet is that you could easily fit 22 or more rounds back there, i think that was the exact capacity of an old Meggitt designed mechanized bustle ammo rack. The rest of the needed ammo might be in another compartment inside the hull. For example if they managed to make an engine that was shorter (ala Europowerpack), the freed up space could serve to store ammo. Actually such a solution would also be very good for 130mm rounds (stored perpendicularly).
  4. alanch90
    Unlikely, such a carrousel type doesn´t leave space for the crew in the turret. Both TTB and XM1202 had the crew encapsulated forward in the hull. The difference between those 2 is that the latter was modified to, presumably, provide a "corridor" so that 1 crewman could access the weapons compartment for emergency servicing of the gun from the forward crew capsule. Abrams TTB: XM1202
  5. alanch90
    As far as i know "M1A3" is not planned. But whatever, if this new concept operates they way i think (crew in turret basket, under the ring, etc, etc.), they will have to make some changes to the hull anyways. Although it's a good idea if you want to recycle existing tanks to save money. For example, by replacing the suspension with the in-arm hydro designs they are testing on the bradley, they could free enough space so that gunner and TC can sit in the same way as the driver.
  6. alanch90
    For an IFV makes a lot of sense if you absolutely want a 9 man squad. Current Bradley crews already consist of 3 men. For tanks, the americans have always been more conservative, always preferring the lower risk options. Although at this early stage, 2 man crews for tanks should not be discarded at all. XM1202, is it you? XD
  7. alanch90
    The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.
  8. alanch90
    That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD
  9. alanch90
    I acknowledge that this is just sketching, people brainstorming, very early conceptual work just to figure out the requirements. Among all existing 4th gen tank programs the US is the one which is the most behind in terms of schedule, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However based on the type of american responses to the concept of the fully isolated crew layout, i'm inclined to think that the americans might find this solution as an optimal compromise between the ´revolutionary´ and the traditional layout. Bottom line, the first thing they have to figure out is if they are more interested in a 40-50 ton tank to fight the Chinese on Pacific islands and/or continental SE Asia or if they prefer a 50-60 ton design to be ready to exchange blows with the Russians in Eastern Europe Cold War Style. You can't do both and expect to be succesful.
  10. alanch90
    Perhaps TC and gunner sit in the turret basket but below the turret ring (ala Black Eagle), giving the possibility of servicing the main gun/autoloader in case of failure and also the possibility for the commander to climb to the turret and keep the situational awareness. I remember that back when T-14 was unveiled, US crewmen said that they prefered to be able to keep the top view from the turret. This was also the impression US Army got from testing the unmanned turret testbed in the 80s.
  11. alanch90
    I can't tell if that sketch portrays a 2 man turret or an unmanned one.
  12. alanch90
    While i think that most likely the requirements are delusional , the Army is convinced as always and is doing this just to press the industry.
  13. alanch90
    So an industry that has grown way too accustomed to over promising, over budgeting and under delivering is concerned about real competition. You gotta love free enterprise capitalism.
  14. alanch90
    The stated length is the entire projectile, not just the penetrator. The rods width is about 19-20mm. Muzzle velocity is correct. My own estimations for the projectile´s dimensions corroborate those figures.
  15. alanch90
    I actually investigated and wrote an article some years ago on the issue. Overall the video is good but Chieftain is getting some stuff partially wrong about the initial years of RKKA, mainly how the debate on the military doctrine of the RKKA was intertwined with the political debate in the Bolshevik Central Committee.
  16. alanch90
    Not only that. If the missile is LOAL (lock on after launch) able (like Brimstone, Spike, etc.), then the operator can fire it in a general direction and either he himself looking through the missiles optics can lock on a target, or alternatively, the missile can lock itself on whatever seems like a target under the parameters chosen by the operator before firing. In a GLATGM this is very useful for example against enemy tanks that are shooting and going immediately hull down. So, if you know that "behind that hill over there" there's an enemy tank platoon in prepared firing positions, you just use these missiles and problem solved (unless there are APS involved). Supposedly these capabilities are built into the Sokol-V and that's why i see it as a very significant leap compared to previous soviet derived GLATGMs.
  17. alanch90
    the chinese have been building 1500hp engines for many years now.
  18. alanch90
    At which point GLATGM is not worth the price of the shot.
  19. alanch90
    Lahat is still a very good option though and the only GLATM available in 120mm. While i doubt its effectiveness against T-14 i do see it´s usefulness against the much more numerous against T-72 and T-90 models
  20. alanch90
    Sorry for the double post. It´s not that hard. Lahat travels at 250-300 m/s. During that time, the shooter has to be static in position. That gives the T-14 up to 20 seconds to locate the shooter in a straight line. Depending on the range characteristics of the T-14 radar (of which we can only speculate) it may even track the Lahat since (or shortly after) the launch. However Afghanit not only detects ATGMs via radar, there are also visual detection devices, which could make locating the point of origin even easier (and this without accounting for the automatic target recognition capabilities claimed for the FCS). All this, while valid for ATGM, is also valid for any kind of ammunition shot at the tank. As an israeli tank commander said in an interview last year: an APS isn't really a defensive system.
  21. alanch90
    The vertical launchers are for multi spectral smoke and soft countermeasures against top attack. Against Lahat, normal horizontally launched smoke grenades will do the job. Perhaps in the future one one of the two vertical smoke launchers could be replaced with other hard kill interceptors (just like the ones of the Arena-M, cassettes that launch vertically and rotate mid air so that the explosion and fragments go upwards). But i digress, people often forget that APS also comprises softkill measures.
  22. alanch90
    Indeed. Thing is that there are not many tanks out there with radars.
  23. alanch90
    I didn't mean a hardkill interception. Just by popping smoke the missile is useless.
  24. alanch90
    I don´t understand how they believe that Lahat is gonna give them overmatch vs the T-14. Lahat may have a very good maximum range (8km) and top attack but its not fire and forget and the missile is fairly slow, meaning that the tank has to be exposed to enemy fire during a long time. If the gunner loses visual on the target, the missile is useless. How its going to go in a theoretical scenario? Cr2 spots an advancing T-14 at about 5km and fires Lahat. T-14 APS detects the missile and the point of origin, Cr2 turret is then spotted by the gunner. T-14 loads Sokol, locks the target and fires. T-14 deploys smoke and countermeasures and reverses to cover while Sokol flies on his own and hits the Cr2.
  25. alanch90
    Quick update on the Argentina-Stryker thing: as i suspected from the beginning, its not gonna happen. Turns out that it was the previous, shitty M*cri administration (not gonna write his name, brings bad luck) which during literally its final hours requested the Strykers. The current Fernandez administration (which has not yet proven themselves to be any less shitty) stopped the whole thing. Word now is that the government wants to buy chinese VN-1 instead which are more modern than the Stryker while costing a fraction of its price. Perhaps there is a chance for some local manufacturing of parts. https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/agustin-rossi-frena-compra-vehiculos-armas-militares-nid2394387
×
×
  • Create New...