Voltzz

16 hours ago, mr.T said:

Wonder where they buy the tires for these things as these are not something you can buy in the West its either Russian or Ukrainian made for bazillion of swamp vehicles like Russian Sherp designs that are made  around these low pressure low ply tires , and the vehicle with no suspension and tire design with super low pressure is far from ideal for a stable firing platform

Afaik the mission master is based on the Canadian Zeal Motor Inc FatTruck

While this vehicle is inspired by the Sherp, i doubt that they use the same tires considering they have different diameters and different inflation systems. But i could not find where the FatTruck tires are actually made, just one source describing them as "bespoke".

This site has a bunch of Dornier publication (in German) including from their time as part of DASA and later EADS. It claims approval by 'Airbus Corporate Heritage'.
The most interesting bit is a cloud-storage with digitized Dornier Post issues.(1935-1943+1962-1994) Included is also a spreadsheet with a list of all the articles and a weird .exe that allows you to search the text contents of the archived issues.

On 4/9/2023 at 5:28 PM, Voltzz said:

Looks like a Luna NG drone carrying a smaller drone (maybe quad-copter) carrying a warhead

the smaller drone is apparently a Hero-R rotary-wing loitering munition

source (in german)

A few year old, but i just found it and thought the launching method was fascinating:

The video shows a RPK-6M Vodopad anti-submarine missile being launched from the torpedo tubes of the cruiser Pyotr Velikiy

Looks like a Luna NG drone carrying a smaller drone (maybe quad-copter) carrying a warhead

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv4Dw1x1OP0

tracked Boxer video on KMWs Youtube

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

In an unrelated statement, Esa Rautalinko (CEO of Patria) has declared that his company wants to partner with Rheinmetall and/or KMW for production of the CAVS, if it was selected by the German Army as Puma replacement.

i think that should be Fuchs shouldnt it?

On 8/7/2022 at 11:18 PM, LoooSeR said:

 

i am fascinated by this concept of letting the unitary explosive descent on a parachute. Now im not very well versed on artillery matters, so pls correct me if im getting something wrong, but as i understand it Elbit uses the parachute to achieve a more vertical descent creating a more efficient spread of the fragmentation (it would be interesting to know if the "Standard HE" is also pre-fragmented, or just natural fragmentation). But regardless of their claims about the improved cover area, im interested in the plausibility of two other uses of this mechanism. If their existed the option to time the exit of the payload from the shell body, couldnt this be used as a 1 dimensional course correction mechanism (in combination with a muzzle velocity radar)? And shouldnt it be possible to achieve MRSI, without altering the amount of propellant, by adjusting the timing of the release for every elevation?

No good source on it yet, but it looks just so cursed, so i need to post it:

The top one is an LRAC F1 (found the image on its wikipedia site) the bottom one is apparently an AC300 Jupiter, a cooperation between MBB and Luchaire, mating an armbrust recoilless grenade launcher to a milan 2 warhead.

edit: found a source:

Quote

In 1982 the firm of Luchaire created [sozdat] on an
initiative basis jointly with the West German firm of
Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm the Jupiter AC 300
handheld AT rocket launcher, the operating principle of
which is the very same as for the Armbrust handheld AT
weapon. This permits firing from small enclosed
emplacements. Firing of the handheld AT rocket
launcher is not accompanied by flame or smoke and
sound intensity is lower than when firing a pistol.
The over-caliber rocket-assisted projectile is fitted with a
shaped-charge warhead. There is a probe in front which
triggers the charge at the optimum distance from an
armor obstacle. A rocket motor engages on the initial leg
of the trajectory, increasing the projectile's muzzle veloc-
ity from 180 to 275 m/sec. Stabilizer fins open up when
it emerges from the launching tube.

But still no source on it being a Milan warhead or on it being reusable(seems unlikely)

edit2: found another source with an image. Stand-off tube and warhead diameter fits the milan 2. But the source is meh; just below it labels an armbrust as a Strim. as far as i know Strim was just another name for the LRAC

15 hours ago, speziale said:

KNDS in which the Nexter has a higher share

isnt it 50 50?

14 hours ago, speziale said:

I think the main problems is there are too many paralell R&D capacities, and both countries want to retain it' capabilites in certain areas. I mean if the 130mm gun will be accept for the MGCS the development of the 140mm gun will be sunk cost for the Nexter and it very probably means the end of large caliber gun development at the Nexter.

If we look at the Fremm frigates we can see that more or less just the ships' bodies are common. The sensor suits, weapons differs significantly on the french and italian ships. In the case of MGCS in theory it can design to it can use both the Nexter' and RM' IT architect and Thales/Hensoldt sensorsuits. Indeed, this solution will rise the costs significantly. But to design a turret which can fit to both the 130 and 140mm gun and the different autoloaders...uhhh...

this hits the nail on the head. i think the French position is understandable when you consider that German companies (KMW, Renk, MTU, DST) will almost certainly get the lead role in designing the automotive components for the tank. Nexters capabilities for heavy tracked vehicle mobility were severely reduced  by the end of Leclerc manufacturing. So France was hoping to get the lead on the turret and armament, arguing that they had the superior technology based on the Leclerc. From the german perspective, most innovation in MGCS will be in the Turret and weapon system (see Panther, EMBT) so as the lead on MGCS the want the biggest share. But that would leave only electronics for France and even there a possible entry of Italy and Leonardo into MGCS could mean giving up even more workshare.

Imo the French complaints about MGCS mirror the german ones about FCAS and so the German desire to link these 2 together makes sense even, bith that makes both programs an organisational nightmare.

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:

• Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
   
• If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 

i think everyone agrees that most or all components should be single-source

My preferred solution, even if its not very realistic, is to let Dassault build the Plane, KMW the Tankhull and Rheinmetall the Turret while Airbus and Nexter only act as subcontractor. To make up for that both companies could get the lead on projects that are not essential to the main platform. So a MGCS equivlent of Airbus getting the ucav lead.

On 10/29/2022 at 11:58 AM, SH_MM said:

Below is a marketing photo from Eurosatory 2022, showcasing a Dedrone RF360 sensor on a RCT-30 turret mounted on a Boxer. The sensor would detect radio signals as used to control (micro-)UAVs within a 5 kilometres range and determine the direction from which the UAV is approaching. The software updated to the FCS would then allow (probably automatically) tracking the drone and engaging it.

interesting that the pictures from the test show the turret without the MUSS infrared jammer while in the marketing material it is present

interesting Rheinmetall patent i found, in which part of the frontal turret armour is attached to the gun, and recoils with it, to reduce the recoil path.

An additional patent shows a more complicated version of this that is supposed to also manage the vertical component of recoil when the gun is elevated. But honestly i am to dumb to understand that version.

i find it interesting that there seems to be a bunch of patents from around this time about reducing the required space for recoil and elevation of an MBT gun. I would guess with a perspective of integrating larger calibre guns without increasing turret volume.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

KMW has showcased that a software update to the Puma's turret and a RF sensor (direction finder) allows it to engage micro-UAVs. I have posted earlier about this in this topic.

Could you point me to the post? Im having a hard time finding it.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Below is a marketing photo from Eurosatory 2022, showcasing a Dedrone RF360 sensor on a RCT-30 turret mounted on a Boxer. The sensor would detect radio signals as used to control (micro-)UAVs within a 5 kilometres range and determine the direction from which the UAV is approaching. The software updated to the FCS would then allow (probably automatically) tracking the drone and engaging it.

the integration on the turret looks a bit cluttered, i hope they find a better way of doing this. I also think an RF sensor is a solution very much focused on commercial quadcopters. An IR sensor could be more versatile.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

That is MBDA's Multi-Purpose Combat Vehicle (MPCV) turret, which can be configured for anti-tank use or air-defence use by integrating different missile. It was not proposed by Rheinmetall for the NNbS program, only by MBDA.

Ah, thanks, so it is the same turrets just with different effectors.

I do remember Rheinmetall being involved in some way though. If i understand this press release correctly they seem to have some role in developing/building the turret. But still weird that they are involved both with MBDA and with Diehl for NNbS.

18 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Airburst 40 mm grenade coupled with a radar.

Limited range but such systems has been experimented with and use already existing tech (so quick and easy solution which can be integrated on pretty much anything):

Sorry, i dont mean the dedicated anti-drone version with the gmg.

In the slide for the ifv version the last bulletpoint is "Befähigung zur Drohnenabwehr"(capable/capability of drone defence)

But i dont recognize any radar or visual sensor for that in the picture and im not sure if the elevation of the 30mm autocannon (45°maybe) would be enough

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

"Not-IFV" that is an IFV

very nice pictures

on the "Gruppenfahrzeug" what do they mean by 'capable/capability of drone defence'?

autocannon elevation, sensors,...

and the Anti-tank variant looks very similar to the proposed MBDA/Rheinmetall close-air-defence (NNbS) version.

A concept for an air defence boxer using iris-t (SLS?) presented by ARGE NNbS (Diehl, Rheinmetall & Hensoldt)

This KMW patent shown on @Andrei_bt 's site, seems to show a similar elevation mechanism:

And while i cant track down a source for this, many news sites are reporting that KMW is working on elevation up to +30° for the RCT120

also that large calibre coaxial looks like it elevates independent of the main gun. Very strv 2000 like.  

Does anyone know the source for these images of the elevation/depression mechanism on the KMW RCT120 (on the Boxer Tracked). They were posted on twitter by vpn test and linked too by Nicholas Drummond

On 1/4/2022 at 3:51 PM, SH_MM said:

A concept for a low-profile turret seemingly for the Leopard 2 was applied for by Rheinmetall in mid-2020. This seems to be a more refined version of the turret concept developed by Wegmann for the Kampfpanzer 3 tank program of the mid to late 1980s.

 

Hi SH_MM,

Im new here and im having a hard time wrapping my head around what this patent is desribing. Do you have a link to the patent or could you idealy explain what it is about and how it is related with the Wegmann flat turret/ cleft turret thing

hi, im new here

i have a few question on this topic:

1. is it correct that the version of object 490a with part of the gun coming out of the back of the turret is the earlier 125mm version, while the later 152mm version has the gun further forward in the turret?

2. is there any information on the loading mechanism of t-74/object 450? moving the round externally between the hull ammo storage would seems to me to be a maintenance nightmare, especially if the loader has to swing around to feed the gun in any position

3. all the images for Izdelie 480 dont show up for me, does anyone have any link to images of it?

4. Is there any information on the height of Object 490 Topol? Its missing in Molota_477s comparison drawing.