Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

StarshipDirect

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StarshipDirect

  1. One thing I don’t like about this turret is the placement of the CITV. They should wrap the RWS around the CITV and put it towards the back of the turret. Seems kind of dumb to put both sights right next to each other and directly in the way of the RWS. I like Raytheon’s battle guard design. The turret appears to have high gun elevation and room for the larger 50mm ammo. Missile launcher on the right side with both a javelin and tow launcher that flips upwards. I wonder what APS this turret can handle besides iron fist.
  2. Did you not see the picture I posted above showing the MCT-30 with a Javelin ATGM and Hydra 70 rocket pod mounted to the sides of the turret? One would assume this turret doesn’t need an RWS to launch ATGMs. If a manned Bradley turret can mount Iron Fist why wouldn’t this turret be able to? Call it my interpretation but it seems really pointless for Kongsberg to offer a turret that can’t fire ATGMs or mount an APS. It would also be a terrible decision for the Army to buy a turret that can’t utilize these options.
  3. These turrets are designed to be modular, you’d be surprised what types of modifications they can do with a simple looking turret. Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf
  4. MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want.
  5. I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall.
  6. For all the people saying this turret is too tall. Look at how tall the MCT-30 made the Stryker with the hull riser. Huge difference, Army made the right choice.
  7. You’re forgetting the added height from the plate that supports the MCT-30 turret. It’s the about the same as the Oshkosh turret when you factor this in. No plans for an APS are you sure? They actually all had ATGM capabilities, just not presented with the launchers.
  8. Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside.
  9. I’m sure Poland and some other Eastern European countries have shown interest. This would make make a good replacement for the PT-91 and T-72 for Polish Army
  10. For the love of god no more Bradley variants. Why is BAE even wasting their time with this nonsense.
  11. Apparently coronavirus is affecting production. I doubt it will be a major issue, timelines change quite often. BAE has delivered at least one prototype back in December.
  12. Look closer, you can see periscopes. Like you said they rejected two man crews, hence the extra crew spaces. The TC would not control the drones, the extra forth crewman would. Switchblade drones are small flying munitions perfect for tanks. The Griffin IFV demonstrated carrying these.
  13. No they just labeled it wrong. It says 100 ready rounds which would mean the smaller RWS since 7.62 comes in 100 round ammo cans. Plus there's no flash hider at the end, it's got to be the GAS.
  14. Now that I look closer tank 1 and 2 might not be 2 man crews. The first one appears to have four and the second three. You can see the gold colored periscopes on the turret, looks like the crew is sitting below the turret ring.
  15. There's only so much you can do with the 30mm.
  16. 30mm won't get it done in the long-term.
  17. Variant 1 and 2 have the least potential. Let's face it, a two man crew is not realistic in the field. Tank 3 still allows a lighter turret with autoloader and keeps a 4th man for UAV operation, operating the 2nd RWS, and other duties. I would assume the gunner is still in the turret with the TC and would be the backup loader since the TC can take control of the main gun from his station using the TC primary control handle. If you look closely you can see the gunners auxiliary sight on the left side of the gun mantlet. This would indicate that the gunner needs to be there to use it, unless they swaped out the old design for a digitalized version.
  18. Why would they remove all ATGMs and put a smaller 30mm on it? The other turret was better.
  19. It's the AMPV, but yeah pretty much is a Bradley with an unmanned turret. It's the new EOS R800 turret.
  20. Yeah but they can still use it as leverage. Buy our light tank and now you have the option to buy an IFV with a common chasis. I think if GDLS wins MPF there's a high probability they win OMFV. Hopefully BAE wins and we get the Lynx.
×
×
  • Create New...