MRose
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by MRose
-
-
7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.
That vehicle looks a lot larger and higher than 5 tons and 2 meters and packs a lot more firepower. Seems more something along the Russian Terminator line of CONOPs.
-
Finally, some real news on Carmel!
https://www.janes.com/article/85886/rafael-unveils-suite-for-future-armoured-vehicles
-
Guess someone caught the ATV craze too
-
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:13 hours ago, MRose said:
And more importantly it's the size and weight the Army is looking for with the OMFV, the NGCV was suppose to be on the lighter side. Seems like the Lynx is designed for the GCV contest and not the OMFV.
As far as I undeerstand, the weight is not limited as long as it meets the protection requirements. The Lynx KF41 (at 50 metric tons at most) falls quite a bit short of the Ground Combat Vehicle (the proposed designs weighed 60-70 metric tons), it is actually closer to the Griffin III (at nearly 40 metric tons with armor package fitted) than to the GCV. The original/planned requirement for the NGCV was apparently to carry at least a crew of two and five dismounts, but this was toughened to carry at least a crew of three and six dismounts. The US Army's decision makers could very well change their mind and prefer a lighter or heavier vehicle by 2026, when the NGCV is scheduled to enter service. The Lynx KF41's design is modular, so a lower weight can be achieved, but this might require lower protection levels.
They can't change their mind once the RFP is drawn up without something short of scrapping the whole thing. The NGCV was supposed to be around ~25-35 tons, almost a new FCS, but I guess they moved up the IOC quite a bit so they can't do something too radical and that's how we ended up with the OMFV. Now I'm getting a clearer idea why the RCV and all the other programs were lumped into the NGCV CFT.
-
10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:11 hours ago, SH_MM said:
In one of the video interviews at AUSA, GD said that the hull is currently pretty much a mock-up, not a real offer. The turret seems to be feature great capabilities, but there honestly is nothing that would prevent a similar (or the same; but that will never happen due to the arms industry competing against each other) turret could easily be fitted onto other IFVs.
Hardly an issue for a vehicle that is only supposed to enter service in the mid to late 2020's.
And more importantly it's the size and weight the Army is looking for with the OMFV, the NGCV was suppose to be on the lighter side. Seems like the Lynx is designed for the GCV contest and not the OMFV.
-
I wonder if the NGCV will actually get a full buy, since they definitely had something more revolutionary/transformational in mind, but couldn't make it work in the timeframe because of all the other failed acquisitions.
-
8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:11 hours ago, heretic88 said:
Inferior optics on T-15... Funny. I doubt there is anything known about the latest russian optics... but they already rated it "inferior"...
Probably based on assumption that it is either made on base of what we had on hands in T-72B3, or that we are using Chinese export crap, both of which is a possibility. GurKhan had a comment on our thermal imagers, and he wasn't postivie in it about their capabilities.
I thought it was French crap
-
12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Plenty of utility work that the M113 currently does where you dont need a 35 ton Eitan.
On 10/10/2018 at 1:46 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:It is however very possible that the IDF will pursue some form of APS for its new, barely talked about 8-ton APCs, if it will deem it favorable over autonomous recon vehicles.
Definitely a possibility, but I don't see the IDF using it in a dangerous role over let's say a Robattle. I'd figure it will be something along the lines of a smaller Griffon or M-ATV, given Plasan is Israeli.
-
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Here:
https://news.walla.co.il/item/2855741
And minor correction: 12 tons.
This stands in line with the Gideon plan that says it pretty blatantly that due to budgetary constraints, the spearheading troops will get the best available gear while the lighter supporting formations will get the cheaper stuff. A 12 ton MRAP is cheap. Definitely cheaper than an Eitan or a Namer. The IDF cannot afford making thousands of Namers.
That seems more possible, but the article is from 2015 so is it possible plans have changed? I guess if you have a 1/2 person capsule that would provide enough protection, but what role would this fill? Guarding the flank and preventing infiltration? I thought the Eitan buy was suppose to be huge.
-
33 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
It is however very possible that the IDF will pursue some form of APS for its new, barely talked about 8-ton APCs, if it will deem it favorable over autonomous recon vehicles.
You have some sources? That seems like a death trap
-
22 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Everything that is made by state-owned companies - Rafael, IMI (which will soon be privatized), and IAI, is developed first and foremost for the IDF, and only later is modified for export.
The IF-LD was developed with the IDF in mind?
-
https://www.janes.com/article/83690/idf-to-test-iron-fist-aps
Extremely doubtful the Trophy-HV will be going on the Eitan, if the IDF is testing the Iron Fist-LC
-
Quote
While the M1 Abrams tank still has life in it yet, the Army is starting to begin the thinking and planning process for a future tank, “which is really exciting because it might not be a tank,” Coffman said. “It is decisive lethality and what that decisive lethality is will be determined by academia, our science and technology community within the Army and industry.”
The Army will choose a path in 2023 on how it plans to replace the Abrams and some of the ideas cropping up in discussions have been “everything from a ray gun to a Star Wars-like four-legged creature that shoots lasers,” Coffman said, “but the reality is that everything is on the table.
Time for a new thread?
-
The US is very happy with the Israeli APSes, and Israel now has to locate production in the US. The Israelis didn't want to rush the Carmel and I guess decided to shift away from requirements based because of how many fuck-ups and they actually have to field something now.
-
Looks like the timetable for the NGCV would prevent whatever becomes of Carmel from competing. Maybe whatever is the follow-on.
-
19 hours ago, Ramlaen said:19 hours ago, N-L-M said:
Is there a specific enemy system in mind for this overmatch? Which requires 100km and not, say, 80 or 90km?
They're looking at 1000nm now
-
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:11 hours ago, MRose said:
Also APSs aren't the best in high intensity warfare because signal management actually matters vs AFG/Iraq/Gaza/etc.
You know you can just turn them off, right?
If that's the case, and you're preparing for a near peer war, the money is better spent elsewhere...
-
Also APSs aren't the best in high intensity warfare because signal management actually matters vs AFG/Iraq/Gaza/etc.
-
23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Fielding of T-14 is not going to happen soon, and if you survey this forum a bit better you'd know that I'm most vocal here about Russia's MoD's intents to freeze all projects for new platforms (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang). But eventually they will start making them.
On 9/26/2018 at 6:06 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.
??????
The T-14 will not be fielded in any meaningful numbers in the next 10 years.
-
9 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
I am sick of this "Putin's X" or "Putin's Y" crap. Putin's army, Putin's ships, Putin's boots, Putin's tooth brushes, Putin's chairs and underpants. Trying to squeeze 140+ mil people coutnry into "Putin's Z" is overused and stupid. Especially now, when fucking communists are starting to win local elections and taking places from United Russia, it should be obvious.
Putin's taken a certain ownership in the nuclear cruise missile? Didn't he order it tested, when the leaders of the project told him it wasn't ready.
9 hours ago, LoooSeR said:Oil money is not first reason for Economical health/capabilites of Russia. Economic problems and decline started in 2013, before oil prices drop and Ukrainian events.
Tanks equipment proposals are not Putin's work, MoD finally managed to unfuck itself (partially) and put Relik on T-72B3 in situation of low prices on oil and big amount of MoD money used for Bulavas and Sarmats. Equipping small fleet of T-72s with APS is not some sort of country-wide effort when people need to give up their trousers so army can afford T-72s with Arenas.
Also, it is great that you apparently know how well "Putin's "unconventional" weapons" work and apparently you have data on their reliability. Would you like to share it with us?
We're agreement here. I was talking about Zuk's fantasy of fielding the T-14s en masse, that's why I brought up the price of oil. Western reports had the missile failing.
-
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
The T-72B3 and others will get the Arena-M APS or a new variant of it. But they're not the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the T-14, which although set back to LRIP stage, will still be produced in fairly large numbers in the coming years. In terms of army-wide military procurement, it's already here, and will be ready pretty soon.
Maybe if oil goes $200, Putin's going with more let's say "unconventional" weapons that don't even work.
-
58 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:4 hours ago, MRose said:
APSes are for the hybrid threat. Stationing an ABCT or 2 in Poland goes a long way. (Sorry @LoooSeR) The US Army right now is a lot more focused on rebuilding its long range strike capabilities, than investing in marginal improvements of existing platforms. Too bad LORA doesn't go out to 499km.
Hybrid and high intensity are pretty much the same threat set and require the same preparations in terms of tech. Just a different pace of things.
Even the largest and most advanced regular armies cannot deploy MBTs to every combat area, which is why flanking and shit still happens and always will happen, and they have ATGMs distributed across a whole lot of platforms with varying combat capabilities.
So even when going against Russia or China or whatever, the top threat is going to be ATGMs.
Especially once they go past 2nd gen ATGMs.
But it's not going to stay strictly anti-ATGM.
By 2021 there will be two serially produced MBTs with APS that can defeat KEPs.
By 2025 I assume the number will grow to 3 or 4.
By 2030 it will be 5 at least.
It's not a marginal upgrade either. An APS is a force multiplier, and if you look at it on the brigade level, or even division level, you got a formation that can stomp any similar sized formation.
In a peer war environment, you generally want US MBTs up against Russian MBTs because that's the most effective platform against those. We haven't seen the Iron Fist data or any other, so it's safe to be conservative. Then there's the matter of if Russia will even be able to equip their T72BXXs with it.
-
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Not sure HIMARS is something you'd want to give to an unmanned vehicle.
Or you could even fit it on the JLTV...
I could see these operating like a convoy with only a couple of soldiers manning the site.
-
Also a little surprised Israel hasn't bothered to market the turret. I'd imagine there'd be a great amount of interest from Eastern Europe.
Israeli AFVs
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.