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

DIADES

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    405

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by DIADES

  2. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Kal said:

    air-burst

    and I suggest air burst is the wrong round against a MOVING UAV.  Stationary, fine but not moving.  If the UAV is moving toward or away, then range is changing dynamically.  Air burst rounds are programmed to burst at the range set as they leave the muzzle - that range comes from lasing the target.  The range is correct at the time of the LASER return.  UAV speeds are far above vehicle speeds so the target will not be where the round explodes and far outside normal FCS lead.

  5. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    48 minutes ago, Kal said:

    able to provide counter
    UAS defence     and also operate as part of the integrated Active Protection System

    Pure sales bullshit.  First of all, the APS is a short range system - as in very short range.  It is designed to deal with high speed threats, close in - the threshold velocity for threat recognition is probably about 300m/s = about 1,000km/h =RPG7 flight speed.  Just sub-sonic.  The senor suite for Iron Fist is optimised fro that speed and above.  Staged sensors IR then RADAR.  The RADAR which is the tracking tool is not enabled unless a launch flare is detected.  So, no launch, no RADAR = no tracking capability.  Unless a drone has a velocity above 300 m/s and an enormous flare exhaust (we call those RPGs not drones), IRON FIST will snooze while it drones around.

     

    The RWS is a better tool for dealing with drones but, once again, no tracking capability, no detection capability - publicly declared anyway.  I do not believe that anybody is planning to run the Iron Fist RADARs in an active state just in case a drone comes along so it could be tracked and fired on by the RWS because that will allow everything with any kind of RADAR receiver to spot the vehicle immediately and accurately = suicide.

  6. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, Kal said:

    bushmaster mk44S

    What gun is near irrelevant - just a heavy stick that goes bang.  A few parameters in the FCS and you can change guns as much as you like.

     

    Plus - I do not believe tight integration with Iron Fist and Iron Vision (and Iron Umbrella or whatever) unless Elbit is doing the FCS.  That sort of tight integration requires sharing code at a depth that I cannot see Elbit allowing.

  8. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

    the specifics of a product.

    Understood - I will see what I can find.  It does feel like I can be pretty assertive when I see imagery of the turret being built in Israel followed up by it being operated proudly in Israel in an Elbit video :)

     

    It being a member of the MT30 family should strengthen its case - Hanwha can argue maturity of sub-systems at least.  I am a bit twitchy about this stuff.  I really hate fig leaf AIC which is what this looks like.

     

    Actually Elbit but the sales line is EOS who it apperas will be a thin sub-contractor - build to print if that.

     

  11. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    47 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

    some of your claims

    OK, so correct me.

     

    On the Requirements, there is a public version and I base my claim on that.  Perhaps something else has been negotiated that is not yet public but I would be surprised.  UAV defence would be a scope creep and that would come at a cost.  Neither turret has been seen with any UAV shootdown capability - where are the sensors?  True, we have not seen the to be delivered for RMA version of LANCE as yet but we have seen the Elbit turret for RMA.

     

    On the turret being Elbit - that is obviously true on the basis of public info again - from Elbit....

     

    So where am I wrong?

     

    I am sure that CoA would love to see a UAV shootdown demonstration and maybe that is on the cards - but that would have to be a pretty contrived test.  Pointless in fact.  Any paper exercise will show that the primary weapon can shoot any UAV out of the sky.  Fine, but air defence requires detection and tracking capabilities very different from those found in conventional turrets - which is why there are specialized air defence vehicles.

  12. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Kal said:

    UAV shoot

    Firstly - UAV defence is not a Requirement under L400 Ph3 (or Ph2 for that matter).

     

    Secondly - lets clear up a myth.  The Hanwha turret is not an EOS turret.  Not  At  All.  The turret is pure Elbit MT30 with new lipstick.  Designed by Elbit, made by Elbit in Israel.  Yes, an EOS remote is fitted - by CoA mandate and the same remote is used by Rheinmetall, by CoA mandate.  In fact, Rheinmetall have plenty of integration experience with this particular remote as it is also used on BOXER for Ph2.

     

    Thirdly - still not a Requirement but what sort of UAV do you imagine we are shooting at?

  13. United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    16 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    right?

    Agreed but like Beer says, we are so far from that.  Present UGV can't tell a puddle from a river .  Water depth um-measurable remotely and guessing from context not available as yet.  Many other examples, any kind of complex terrain is just nowhere near AI doable any time soon.  Even full manned tanks get stuck in/on obstacles and slide down slopes etc etc.

  15. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    On 9/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, Kal said:

    UAV defense

    This is not a real thing.  Yes, you could shoot down a UAV with the main gun.  But not gunna happen in the real world.  No RADAR so no ability to even know there is a UAV around.  Then, the FoV of the sights is optomised for engaging ground targets around the size of an IFV at around 3,000m and potentially moving at typical IFV speeds.  Note that IFVs are limited to motion that has a vertical axis component dictated by geography.  A UAV of course has widely variable motion is all axis.  I can't see the FCS coping.  Plus, too much time staring at the sky would be just asking for real trouble!

×
×
  • Create New...