DIADES

3 hours ago, Serge said:

.

The Char à Caisse Allégée had a hull twice as thin as classical hull. Weight saving was by 15% with armor module. 

Fascinating!  Similarities to LYNX layout are clear

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

The KF31 is not Marder based, but uses a newly built hull based on the old Marder blueprints that is keeping some of the components. The KF41 uses a new hull design, but still shares components with the KF31. Both are largely based on legacy design concepts to remain cheap and technological mature.

 

 

Actually the complete opposite from your claims are true.

Yes, KF31 is Marder based - don't care if they cut up an old one or built a new hull, comes to the same thing.

No, KF41 is new.  It includes components from Puma.  It has all new semi-active suspension (not Puma, not Marder), unique engine and cooling system, new roadwheels, new hull with state of the art armour, a proper LANCE turret, GVA etc, etc...

On Puma, best we agree to disagree - obviously your sources and mine do not agree.  Time will tell.  Regardless, I can't see a remote turret as in anyway useful for "peacekeeping" then again I am biased, I just can't accept a remote turret as a good idea yet.

8 hours ago, Toxn said:

These are all fair enough points, but I think you need to look at the banner for this thread again.

 

Were armoured deck carriers the worst idea ever? No.

 

Does the endless parade of RN apologists trying to big up them make them seem overrated? Yes.

Fair enough and so should the guys I was responding to

tho RN apologists is a bit harsh

7 hours ago, Proyas said:

What is EMI/EMC? 

EMI - electromagnetic interference.  This is electromagnetic noise generated by the electrical systems of an object (the vehicle).  The present limits for EMI are very low.  They have to be.  EMI interferes with radio performance and leads to EMC failures.  There is also remote data reading (TEMPEST) potential.

EMC - electromagnetic compatibility is concerned with a systems ability to operate in an environment with particular levels of electromagnetic radiation.  Common EMC failures include one system performing strangely as a different system is operated.  Can be non-trivial.  I have seen cases where a poorly shielded crane caused the turret of a nearby vehicle to traverse....

1 hour ago, holoween said:

 

Which concepts are those and why would it prevent anyone from buying pumas?

don't get me wrong, Puma is impressive.  A brave design that owes little to the past.  A genuine clean sheet.  I would like to meet the main guy, the concept architect.

Not sure whereabouts I said making armour was simple?  I did and do say that armour is less expensive than aircraft.  Plus, we are not talking about building a new carrier, we are talking armouring the deck of an existing vessel.  Armour ain't armour either.  Don't confuse the types of armour used on tanks etc with the armours used for decks or vehicle under bellies.  Armour is speced to the threat.  Ductility is traded off against hardness.   As for metallurgy and production complexity - aircraft have engines.... and weapons... and sights and radios and even armour!

Then you to carry spares and fuel for the fragile little tinker toys - they break at the slightest little thing.  Then a pilot, then ground crew.  We are all being smart arses in hindsight - hard to have this debate meaningfully without detailed knowledge of exactly what the decision process was at the time.

12 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

Which concepts are those and why would it prevent anyone from buying pumas?

Vast hordes of Soviet armour pouring through the Fulda gap or across the northern plains - this very reasonable fear (for the time) still colours German defence.  We take a long time to change our thinking especially when we have been thinking, planning and training the same scenarios over and over for 50 years.  Add in the fundamental tenet that German forces will never be deployed outside Germany (only recently broken and even then tokenisticly) and you have a recipe for unique design solutions appropriate to those mindsets/scenarios.  All nations have their own version of this problem.  In the case of Puma, the Soviet threat (mass attacks and tactical nukes) drives key design decisions.  The hermetic approach to crew/dismount packaging and the remote gun are typical.  These features are less desirable in other scenarios - they actually degrade military usefulness yet have real value in the scenario they are designed for.  Add in the German technocratic problem seen time and again in WW2 AFV development - there is no idea that can't be made 10 times better by making it more complicated....  And then there are the design limits imposed by the A400M, another perfect example of the fundamental problems I am describing.  Nobody, not even the Germans yet, has this aircraft and its limits are below those of the aircraft others use.

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

.

 

While I líke the CV90 and Lynx, their ancestry in the last generation of vehicles is undeniable, specifically in case of the Lynx KF31. Even the CV90 Mk IV and Lynx KF41 still retain more old design concepts than they introduce new ones. The US Army can choose to buy one of them (or the Ajax), they'd still get a very capable vehicle. But pretending that the Puma offers no advantages over the current versions of them isn't really true. The high costs of the Puma are its Achilles' heel, but if the Czech Republic and Hungary really opt for it (even though it is questionable), it could become a lot cheaper.

KF31 was a demonstrator primarily - Marder based.  KF41 is all new - shares nothing with past vehicles except at the component level (proven transmission for example).

Puma is not just limited by cost - it is too narrowly focused on Cold War German concepts.  It will be a hard sell to anybody - even Germany is less than keen on buying more.  Puma is a solution looking for a problem and a perfect example of unconstrained engineering.

The other approach is redefining role.  A Leopard 1 for example would make a potent recon asset - once upgraded to suit.  All Mighty_Zuks comments apply regarding support of eng/trans etc but the older steel base armours can be upgraded to withstand 30mm (which is the typical standard for recon now) without stupid size/weight barriers.   There will still be a weight penalty but not impossible.  The other issue is that an old tank is old....  Leopard 1 for example developed lots of cracking around all suspension mounts - rewelded many time over service life.  Then there is EMI/EMC - old vehicles are were designed to lower standards so will be electronic beacons compared to modern standards.

Probably best used s gate guardians or suppressing unarmed populations....

On 3/16/2019 at 8:06 AM, Ramlaen said:

German and U.S. military officials had planned, then canceled, a demonstration this week of the Bundeswehr’s Puma infantry fighting vehicle, as the U.S. Army surveys candidates for its Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program.  A German Army spokesman confirmed that an event had been scheduled at the Munster tank-training area for Jeffrey White, a deputy to U.S. Army acquisition chief Bruce Jette. White ended up canceling because of a scheduling conflict, the spokesman told Defense News.

Puma is a dead end in my view.  Way too complex/expensive for too little return.  Plus was developed in isolation in Germany with only German requirements in mind.  Plus, never had any competitive pressure during development.  End result is far from loved by German user.  Plus, the pending Rheinmetall takeover of KMW..... 

3 hours ago, Meplat said:

"kind of"..

The base engineering and then tooling and manufacture set up are.

Once you have a decent manufacturing base though, they are very inexpensive.

 

What IS expensive, are the fleshy bits that fly and maintain them.

Nope - aircraft remain expensive compared to plate.  Plate is just steel, aircraft contain a vast range of metals and other strategic materials many of which are very scarce inn times of war

Only wikipedia but " The KwK 40 L/43 was mounted on the Panzer IV from April 1942 until June 1943. All 225 vehicles of the Panzer IV F2 mounted the L/43 with a ball shaped muzzle brake. About a 1,000 out of the 1,687 vehicles of the Panzer IV Ausf. G mounted the L/43 with a double baffle muzzle brake."  and  " As with the 7.5 cm Pak 40, the muzzle brake of the KwK 40 and StuK 40 went through a series of design changes. Five types of muzzle brakes were used, gradually increasing the area of exposure to the blast. The designs progressed from tubular type double baffle muzzle brakes to single baffle ball shape muzzle brakes, which proved to be insufficient in reducing recoil, followed by a double flange type from May 1943. The front flange and rear disk type was used from March 1944, followed finally by the double disc type."

This is about the Pak 40 and its cousins but it seems certain that all similar guns went through the same evolution - and the Pak 40 and Pak 39 are both Rheinmetall guns..  So we are seeing straight forward evolution

Definitely strange.  Very unlikely to be a British muzzle brake on a German gun.  British Imperial threads, German Metric threads.  My first thoughts were complete wrong gun but it seems to fit the mantlet.  Could be a proper German brake that had failed at first flange (casting defect) and cleaned up on a lathe for some limited use?  I will look/think on!

On 2/5/2019 at 3:43 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

They could have saved money on the armor, built a cheaper ship with a real air wing and maybe had six of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except aircraft are a hell of a lot more expensive than plate.  The British carriers were just not suited to operations in the Pacific which is fair enough, its not what they were designed for.  Regardless of any particulars of the ships themselves, their embarked aircraft were  generally inadequate - for a range of reasons.  War is always about doing the best you can with what you have.  My maternal Grandfather served in Indomitable - Hellcats and Avengers.  He was injured in the 1945 kamikaze attack.  The armoured deck is generally credited with saving the ship in that case.  He also got to see all the remaining aircraft pushed over the side when the war ended.  But I digress, if we are talking over rated or not, then context is all.

5 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

You’re right: it is for mounted close combat...that said, the IFV are intended to be issued to the three mechanised infantry battalions. The infantry sections (now) have three ‘teams’ of three pers, two teams for dismounts, and the vehicle team (i.e. crew). 

 

To clarify, the section commander commands the section - dismounts + vehicle - whereas the vehicle commander, being subordinate to the section commander, only commands the vehicle. 

 

OK, so, based on the RFT which we have to assume is well informed and is congruent with Armys needs and plans (insert demented giggling).

1. We have 3 crew and 6 dismounts.  An Australian infantry section is 8 in 2 teams of 4.

2. We have a turret configured as a MBT differing only in caliber - hunter/killer, killer/killer sights, fairly capable gun (armour and infantry specific rounds), ATGM and APS.  Coax and RWS (7.62 and 050)

How is this to be operated?  The vehicle/turret commander needs the full MBT commander skill set.  The turret needs two crew for full functionality.  If the infantry section commander is to command the vehicle, the required total skill set is huge and overlaps Corps.  At 6 dismounts per vehicle, 4 vehicles (6 per) to carry 3 sections plus another 2 for the rest of the platoon = minimum 6 vehicles & 36 soldiers plus 18 crew,  If we have dual role commanders, then we get 7 per vehicle bu still need 4 vehicles and have 4 empty seats so 4 of support 12 fill those leaving 8 which means 2 more vehicles and 6 empty seats = 6 vehicles & 38 soldiers plus 12 crew (2 per)  Lot of gross simplifications in there.

If we are splitting sections to stuff them into vehicles, we run short of commanders?

I am not up to speed on what is planned.  Thoughts?

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The idea here is not to merely augment the vision of the crew, but to allow them to complete the mission completely buttoned down. It's designed to keep them sealed in that capsule because having the crew separated from the turret adds substantially to the protection.

Imagine being able to isolate the ammo completely from the crew, like in the Abrams, but actually making a very small turret with a tiny profile. Some call it the T-14 or TTB, whatever you prefer to look at for reference.

Except by placing the crew in the back, it's possible to allow them to quickly enter and exit the vehicle under any condition of the turret, quickly resupply, allows creating a universal family of vehicles on the same platform, and almost as importantly, allows shielding the crew from top attack munitions and mines in a substantial increase over what any front-crew design would allow.

 

 

Yes, cool idea and pretty near real.  But still does not address my basic concerns re fusion.  I want this glass armour stuff PLUS I want my head out.

Yes, your points about rear crew are all good providing you first accept the idea of no direct vision to command the vehicle ever.  Ignoring combat, the commander must have top vision just to maneuver the vehicle.  Yes, I admit that vision systems are getting better every day   If there is no direct vision, then there is no possibility of continuing to operate the vehicle in the case of a sub-system failure.  Or mud all over the vehicle or dust across the lenses etc.  AFVs have to operate in all conditions and all conditions of the vehicle - pretty much the same conditions as PBI.

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

One more reason why I think unmanned turrets are the way to go, but that's actually easily fixed. Either reorient the turret via a joystick (FCS), or use any manual override. If the manufacturer does not include a manual override, ask them why they didn't include it, not why they didn't want another hatch.

Battle damage frequently jams turrets.  Even if not jammed, probably no power to operate slew.  Manual reversion is always very slow - and getting slower as turret weights go up.  If the vehicle is on anything other than flat ground, manual forces go way up.  Turrets are generally not perfectly mass balanced around he slew axis as its a lesser priority.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Seems like a show of customizability again. The trend is clear - unmanned turrets. But those who want a manned turret can often get that option from the same manufacturer, even within the same turret.

 

A single hatch may be less comfortable for exit and entry, but it's doable, and more importantly it saves a ton of space on the roof to add things. On such small turrets, every square inch is valuable real estate. Even on the large turrets of MBTs you will more often than not see an issue of over-crowded equipment.

 

For normal exit and entry, I suppose they'll just have to take turns unless the Aussies decide they value ergonomics highly enough to sacrifice available space.

 

In any case when that's not possible, one can lock the turret in place, and exit through a hole in the basket. Not all designs permit that. In some it can be very dangerous, but it's also doable if there's will. Not complicated either, as it takes just not welding a piece of metal to the basket, and adding a simple interruption command to the turret controls.

 

How he got out is fairly easy: Use the back door. It's actually more comfortable in a lot of cases, and allows for a safe evac when the tank's exposed. Only the driver has to actually rely on his hatch.

 

I'm now advancing the idea of a rear-placed hatch-less crew capsule with a back door, center placed unmanned turret, and front placed powerpack.

Some of this comes down to basic differences.  An IFV is not a tank, not quite!  Though lethality is getting up a long way.  IFV drivers can exit via the back, not a lot of fun but doable, and not prevented by turret orientation.  Turret crew can only exit via the back if the turret is oriented over a narrow range, basically at zero.  In peacetime, no issue - actual injuries in training much reduced if you can keep crew off the roof!.  Entry and exit can be conducted at leisure and the turret can be where ever you want.  But is operations, you don't get to choose turret orientation at the point where your armour is over matched and everybody needs out fast.  A loaded IFV is going to have an infantry section going out the back door, probably the driver trying to go that way too (many drivers hatches will not open enough for access unless turret is dead ahead).  The turret crew can't even join that scrum unless they were lucky and the turret basket doors are oriented exactly right.  Hatches in the turret roof are the quickest most direct route out

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Seems like a show of customizability again. The trend is clear - unmanned turrets. But those who want a manned turret can often get that option from the same manufacturer, even within the same turret.

 

A single hatch may be less comfortable for exit and entry, but it's doable, and more importantly it saves a ton of space on the roof to add things. On such small turrets, every square inch is valuable real estate. Even on the large turrets of MBTs you will more often than not see an issue of over-crowded equipment.

 

For normal exit and entry, I suppose they'll just have to take turns unless the Aussies decide they value ergonomics highly enough to sacrifice available space.

 

In any case when that's not possible, one can lock the turret in place, and exit through a hole in the basket. Not all designs permit that. In some it can be very dangerous, but it's also doable if there's will. Not complicated either, as it takes just not welding a piece of metal to the basket, and adding a simple interruption command to the turret controls.

 

 

In the Merkava 4 there are now 2 hatches - TC's and Loader's.

The single hatch variant was an early production one. 

The idea was maintaining the integrity of the roof armor.

How he got out is fairly easy: Use the back door. It's actually more comfortable in a lot of cases, and allows for a safe evac when the tank's exposed. Only the driver has to actually rely on his hatch.

 

I'm now advancing the idea of a rear-placed hatch-less crew capsule with a back door, center placed unmanned turret, and front placed powerpack.

Unmanned turrets are not yet militarily viable - in my view.  The basic problem is that the sensory data fusion a commander has when head out has no technological alternative when head down.  Head out, the brain intrinsically integrates data from eyes, ears, nose, skin.  Head out, peripheral vision works, head down, it does not.  Peripheral vision is where we see least but detect most.  In the pure wonderful world of engagements at weapon limits, say 3k, head out has little value - head down using the tools (sight) is the way to go.  But real engagements are at much shorter ranges, often very short range and the sense of threat that our senses give us if we let them is invaluable.

On 10/23/2018 at 5:44 AM, Sturgeon said:

 

Thoughts, everybody?

Excellent, when do we start?

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

Could be like the original Merk 4? Although the tender requires a ‘manned turret’, it doesn’t explicitly call out that both the gunner & commander have to be contained within. 

 

..I did not know about the single hatch Mk4.  How is the gunner supposed to exit?   Goes down with the ship I suppose.  Optimize protection for RPG at the expense of KE.  Then again, the Merk as been progressively optimized for urban use and I guess somebody saw an easy trade-off - providing you are happy to toast gunners in the event somebody goes off script and brings a real gun to the party.

2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

Could be like the original Merk 4? Although the tender requires a ‘manned turret’, it doesn’t explicitly call out that both the gunner & commander have to be contained within. 

 

One of the tricky parts of using the M113A1 w/T50 turret in the mechanised (as opposed to mounted) infantry role is where the infantry commander resides. Does s/he man the turret whilst mounted, then dismount in an objective, acknowledging that the turret (& weapons) are unattended while the ‘other’ crew commander gets in? Or does the infantry commander sit in the back, with zero SA while closed down? Maybe the T-2000 configuration addresses this, somehow?

IFV role is complicated but the RFT is for Mounted Close Combat.  So I suspect the intent is that the infantry commander is a passenger and that situational awareness is indirect, provided by various camera systems and displays,  The vehicle commander must be in the turret - no practical alternative in my view.  I struggle with the idea of the gunner not in the turret.  The gunner/commander team needs to be close and the dual sight setup will blur roles occasionally.  Plus who services the weapon?   From the dismounted infantry section POV, a fully crewed IFV gives them immediate direct fire support.  Huge step up from M113/0.50Cal.  We're talking airburst 30mm...  And the level of protection will allow real dismount on positions.

Yes, there are various sight configurations shown on the various public domain EOS turret images but in all cases, I can only see one hatch.  The turret seems to have Commander and Gunner (two sights) so one hatch seems to make no sense at all

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

This is the sight they're using:

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

 

 

except this says they are using the RWS sight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj0wNX1hPXgAhUBdysKHQVgDxEQ5TV6BAgBEAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eos-aus.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F03%2FTurret-Launch-Brochure-WEB.pdf&psig=AOvVaw1u03oihU-ecOwNUkfr42wc&ust=1552220174063110

On 2/16/2019 at 2:13 PM, 2805662 said:

The gun is *not* common between phases. The caliber is. 

Correct - the gun is only specified in terms of ammunition,