rob89

On 5/24/2022 at 12:02 AM, SH_MM said:

 

MBDA has shown a graphic of its new Sky Ward system on an Enok 9.5, which will be offered for the German NNbS system. It is available with a laser effector, Mistral missiles or the SADM (shown in graphic).

 

what kind of missile the SADM (in the picture) is?

Do you know some data about it?

thanks in advance

so, to date, there are no sufficiently valid systems to protect AFVs from top attacks (both ATGMs and PGMs)?

Another question: do systems like the Trophy have 'cooperative' capabilities, to defend other nearby vehicles?

thanks in advance

20 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

 

https://www.jns.org/new-generation-idf-tank-receives-own-production-line/

 

Actually, it's upgraded Merkava 4, they just call it "Merkava 5"

what could be, in your expert judgment, the survivability of a Merkava 4 (with Trophy) against top-attack ATGMs or PGMs (like the one we are witnessing in Ukraine?

thanks in advance

I'm really confused.

Rheinmetall's Lynx Kf41 has been disqualified, officially because the producer miss the delivery of the prototype at Aberdeeen by the Oct.1.

Meanwhile GDLS is in the game with a prototype that is completely different (as the same GDLS said) from the prospected solution ... 

GDLS shown for the first time (?) the model of its new IFV, proposed for the Australian Army Land 400 Phase 3; this clearly leverages from the Ajax family .

The new vehicle for Australia is fitted with a GDLS-designed two-person turret armed with a stabilised 30mm dual-feed autocannon. 

Hull and turret are fitted with a modular passive armour package and an APS to provide a high level of protection. 

Crew of commander, gunner and driver plus six dismounts.

This 'Carmel' future armored vehicle project seems to me more and more a worderful compact 'turtle', with amazing situational awareness (the Rafael solution is largely the best concept I've ever seen), great firepower (even better with the ATK 50 Supershot), mobility and probably also great protection, passive (a so compact 36 ton AFV could be over Stanag 6 level) and active, with its APS. 

I think it could be a perfect platform for ISR and strike missions, in the role of forward echelon / covering force of the heavy armored brigades. 

US Army's different opinions about future

https://mwi.usma.edu/heavyweights-battlefield-us-army-will-need-largest-armored-vehicles-next-war/

https://mwi.usma.edu/light-mobile-many-rethinking-future-armor/

Ghana 

Al-Khalid : the astonishing tank that will compete with the amazing Arjun  

a new variant showed for the first time by the Pakistani Army ...

Some questions for the experts about autocannons.

Is the new Rheinmetall 35mm x228 Wotan a derivation of the Rh 503 (and therefore linked to the Bushmaster III 35/50 family)?

and, in this case, is it possible to expect a future evolution in a 50mm Wotan / Supershot, with the same interchangeability's characteristics ?

What could be an estimated value of muzzle velocity and the penetration capability of APFSDS of the 50mm Supershot ?

(Williams in his 2013 addenda to the "Rapid Fire" book wrote about 140mm RHAe@1500m@90°)

thank you in advance

PS : a thread about modern/future autocannons and the implications of their evolution could be very interesting 

 sorry if if already exists and I missed it 

I still think that two cannons and related autoloaders, ammunitions and so on, in the same MBT is a conceptual error.
The future MBTs should be, if possible and "coeteris paribus", smaller and not larger.

The simplest (and current tech) solution to the APS problem remains, IMO, the saturation tactics.

If a volley of artillery/heavy mortar smart EFP falls on the MBTs' position in the same moment as they are under fire from 120/130mm APFSDS,  the APS has to choose and there are good chances that some shot (from above or from the front) will pass the barrier.

And, in any case, the possibilities of jamming the APS'sensors will be, almost surely, improved in the future.

14 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Yes and effect from single 120/125 mm HE round are much higher than several 30/35, especially at long ranges. T-90 can launch HE at 12 km range, including in indirect fire. Maybe this will be a new tactics - to shell each other from long range before getting close enough for APFSDS?

 

 

At the end, a 4x SPH's battery, with a MRSI volley, is the simpliest and most effective solution to disable (with a high probability) all enemies' sensors, without so many complications.

A 130/140mm long barrel MBT (with APS, autoloader, heavy armor and all needed electronics and sensors) would already be  a damn huge vehicle, without complicating it with a further (and dual feed !) autocannon ... IMHO, if necessary, it's better a two vehicle solution : an HMBT + a "begleitpanzer" (on the same hull), with high elevation, dual-feed autocannon and missiles.  

Leaving aside the technical and tactical considerations,

how huge and expensive would be a similar MBT, with a 130mm plus autoloader and a dual-feed autocannon, plus APS, last generations materials (and relative armor to protect it), sensors and electronics and so on ?

How many of them the european armies, with limited budgets, could buy ?

And if they will be huge, very expensive and few, they also will be a priority targets for enemy NLOS/PGM systems ...

Is this the right way ?

1 hour ago, Scav said:

Only decent testing footage I've found:

 

Does look rather minimal, but I still don't want to be near that when it goes off, though I guess most combat clothing/vests will protect the infantry.

So, safe to say it's probably not lethal unless it hits the head/armpits with the larger fragments, but minor injuries are still very much possible it seems.

 

I'd still prefer a proper analysis, but I guess we'll have to wait for that....

The explosions of a HEAT against an AFV or the AFV itself are not so healthy for the nearby infantry.
Neither are the explosions of artillery sub-munitions or airburst shells.

AFVs in modern army are very few; their main threats is / will be in the NLOS/PGM/top attack systems.

I think that all the "old" conventional tactics of MBT/IFV plus dismounted infantry should be revisited in the lights of the developments of weapons systems
and, accordingly, the AFV design.

Beyond all words and data, I think that the swedish 1994 contest was the better evaluation of last 20 century MBTs' generation.
And the winner was ... You all know ...

Since then the MBTs have evolved, but the scenarios and threats more.
I think it's a bit weird today to continue evaluating MBT/AFVs just for LOS-RHAe on the frontal arc.

There are a lot of NLOS/PGM/top attack systems that could destroy every AFV beyond visual range (BVR, as for modern aircraft).

In my modest opinion it's very strange that the absolute need for APS system is again so underestimated.
I hope that next generation AFVs (starting with the future German-French MBT) will take into accounts that scenarios and threats and therefore have a really "revolutionary" approach  
 

best regards

20 hours ago, Militarysta said:

2. We also discovered a fatal flaw in Leopard 2A0/A4 chassis design, the bottol of the hull sides where suspension is attached have a structural weakness, which means you can't up armor tank to the weight of 60+ metric tons, otherwise after some time tanks chassis will start to crack.

 

yes, it's true in case old 2A4.

 

Does it mean that all the 2A5 converted from old 2A4 (for ex. the ex-Netherland ones, now in Finland) have these structural weakness and risk to crack, due to their upgraded weight, now above 60 tons ? It seems quite unbelievable ...

In the AW forum there are some pretty sensational revelations (by the user Damian) about the characteristics of Leo 2 armor of early variants and about the chassis and AMAP-B too (Poland AFV, pg.95).

https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?24934-Polands-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles&p=1869758&viewfull=1#post1869758

What do you think ?

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages.

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)?

In any case I find that some of the adopted solutions are very interesting :

- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion.

best regards 
 

A question for the forum' experts

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects?

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

thank you in advance

best regards

PS : why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Yes, that is the main reason why 35/40/57 mm autocannons have been made. But IFVs are always on the light side of protection, the Warrior and M2 Bradley were initially designed to stop 14.5 mm AP rounds at the front only.

Thank you very much for your very detailed and informed answer.

Don't you think that such levels of protections are too low, considering a possible contemporary simmetric battlefield, the "cost" of personnel and vehicles and the low numbers of present armies ?

Why no IFV (apart from the 2 cited HIFV) has the protection at least against 35/40 autocannons APFSDS, unlike the MBT, whose front armour is generally designed to stop the main guns (120/125mm) KE rounds and the ATGMs ? Is it a wise choice ?

thank you

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6).

The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown.

 

Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE.

 

KF31 and KF41 have yet unknown levels of protection. However, due to their weight, especially with the KF41's weight being in the mid 40's and up to 50 tons, it is estimated to have ballistic protection somewhat above normal NATO levels.

Thank you all for welcome and for your answer

STANAG 6 is for 30mm AP(FS)DS @ 500m.

As far as I know, modern 30mm AP(FS)DS have a estimated penetration of 100-120mm RHA equivalent, LOS. 

Do it mean that the last generation IFVs (not considering HIFV like Namer and T-14) have "only" about 120mm equivalent (vs KE) on the frontal arc ? and so they could be easily penetrate by 35/40/57mm autocannon AP(FS)DS ?   

Thank you in advance

Hello everyone

I have a question for the armour experts of this forum

Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.

Thank you in advance

best regards