Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

from physical version of Mittler Report issue on KF41 Lynx (low-res scans are posted on htka.hu forum)   So, I've made couple of comparisons, to the best of my ability

Maybe me knowledge will suffice as well.   This is the VT-001 (Versuchsträger) prototype of the Marder 2 vehicle. With the introduction of the Leopard 2 there was a need for a new IFV t

A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED be

  • 3 weeks later...

In the past weeks a few relevant decisions have been revealed and news regarding other plans/developments were released.

 

The second batch of Puma infantry fighting vehicles will not be ordered next year. Originally it was planned to place an order in October 2020, but only if the industry proves that the Puma is on the right path of development - by showing that there were no issues with the upgraded VJTF 2023 variant. Apparently there were issues - lack of certain specialized tools, incomplete technical document and technical issues with the MELLS (Spike-LR) launcher of all things - and thus the second batch hasn't been ordered yet. The industry has time to fix all issues until February 2021.

 

The second batch of Puma IFVs (depending on source either 229 or 266 vehicles) will be ordered at the earliest in 2022. In September 2020 the industry was asked to make an offer for upgrading all currently existing Puma IFVs to the Puma S1 configuration. A contract is expect to be signed mid-2021.

Spoiler

Puma in VJTF 2023 configuration.

 

 

There are positive news though. The availability/readiness/reliability of the Puma has been increased successfully after a special support agreement had been signed with the industry in mid-2020. While the Puma had a readiness of last year's readiness was about 30%, it is now about 50% using the Bundeswehr's methodology - in the media some people considers this methodology flawed.

 

Basically the Bundeswehr only counts the readiness of vehicles currently assigned and delivered to its own units. If a vehicle is sent back for maintenance/upgrades/refurbishment, the Bundeswehr excludes it from its statistics. IMO that makes some sense, as show by the readiness rate of the Leopard 2.  It remained constant at above 70%, but due to the fact that not all Leopard 2s are currently in the German Army's units (and instead being upgraded or maintained) this corresponds to 115 combat ready tanks - or 44% of the total inventory of 263 tanks. It is worth nothing that last year 107 out of 244 Leopard 2 tanks were combat ready. The increased total inventory (19 more tanks than last year) probably shows that the upgrade of old Leopard 2A4 tanks to the new 2A7V standard has started (and hence they are all at KMW's & Rheinmetall's facilities).

 

Three days ago the German BAAINBw and its Dutch counterpart have signed an agreement for the modernization/mid-life upgrade of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled gun that aims to increase service life to at least 2040. Germany is responsible for selecting the solution and signing the contract.

Spoiler

 

 

There also have been new developments regarding the SHORAD systems that Germany plans to procure as part of the NNbS project. First of all, Diehl presented its new IRIS-T SLS Mark III system, which is based on the Eagle V 6x6 variant and contains two slightly angled up shafts each containing two IRIS-T missiles. Two radar options - either SAAB's Giraffe 1X or Hensoldt's Spexer X-band radar - are offered. The vehicle will be equipped with the Fortion battlefield management system from Airbus (already in service for MANTIS and LeFlaSys) and a FLW 200 remote weapon station for self-defence.

 

bOcOa5m.jpg

 

The high-maneuverability of the IRIS-T missile enables the vehicle to provide 360° protection despite its fixed launchers. It is also claimed to be able to engage targets while on the move. Lock-on before launch with the missiles is only possible in a small sector (i.e. against targets facing the launcher), otherwise the system will utilize lock-on after launch.

Spoiler

pwmMOME.jpg

Different radar configuration.

At first I thoughgt this was meant for export customers, but according to the association of the German military's reserve (i.e. the Verband der Reservisten der Deutschen Bundeswehr e.V.), the Bundeswehr apparently plans to buy a SHORAD missile system based on a protected vehicle. In the German Army's lingo, protected vehicles include the Enok, Dingo and Eagle, while heavier vehicles are considered armored vehicles.

 

I am not entirely sure what to think about it. In the relevant blogs and forums,a  lot of people complained about Diehl's solution. I don't think it's perfect, but I also don't consider it horrible. I wouldn't have minded something along the lines of the Swedish Robotsystem 98 (IRIS-T SLS on BVS 206) but with integrated radars. I also would have liked some cooperation with Norway, who purchase a similar system based on the Armored Combat Support Vehicle (refurbished M113 upgraded with parts from the FFG G5).

 

Meanwhile Rheinmetall has presented its new Skyranger 30 turret. There are some speculations whether this is also meant for the NNbS project or solely aimed at export; the Skyranger 35 turret on the Boxer has been aimed at and marketed for the NNbS project, but apparently not everyone liked it (at least of the public commenters; I have seen no official statements).

EpWiCmqWEAEUNZ1?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

Spoiler

 

 

The new Skyranger 30 turret is armed with a 30 x 173 mm autocannon with high rate-of-fire (1,200 rounds per minute), a coaxial machine gun and two MANPADS. It features at least four AESA radar panels, an optical sight for target tracking and an IRST system for target detection/tracking. 200 rounds of main gun ammo are carried within, the maximum gun elevation is 85°. It apparently weighs only 2.5 tonnes (so it has to be unmanned) and is expected to cost between €5 and €7 millions.

 

I don't see anything wrong with this turret, it probably would be the ideal go-to solution for NNbS lower tier anti-drone & air-defence system (with IRIS-T SLS covering the upper tier). But the old Gepard fraction with their nostalgia glasses seem to dislike it, mostly because of the gun caliber. They also has lots of reasons to complain about the previous variant with 35 mm gun though...

 

Speaking of the Gepard: the last (?) 15 ex-German Gepards have been sold by KMW to Qatar.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I also would have liked some cooperation with Norway, who purchase a similar system based on the Armored Combat Support Vehicle (refurbished M113 upgraded with parts from the FFG G5).

 

I’m not sure if it’s really fair to refer to the ACSV G5 (as it’s now being called by both FFG and the Norwegian Armed Forces) as a "refurbished M113", which IMO would put it in the same category as vehicles like the M113A2F1/F2, the M113F3 and the M113F4 (the original ACSV). The lower hull, along with the suspension and engine is that of a PMMC G5, and while the upper superstructure is very M113 like, and it’s possible that it’s been cut out from surplus M113s, it’s obviously been altered quite a bit as well. I know it’s a bit of grey area we're talking here, but to me it feels like we have moved past the territory of refurbished M113s, and that a better description would be “M113/G5 hybrid”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

The German Army apparently plans to be equipped with 43 turreted Boxers (for three Jäger bataillons) as part of its Division 2027 structure.

3 Companies * 14 Boxers+1 Boxer for the BAAINBW? and makes sense for the Triangular Divison Structure with a Single Jäger Bataillon per Brigade for Reserve and Rear Area Security

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I’m not sure if it’s really fair to refer to the ACSV G5 (as it’s now being called by both FFG and the Norwegian Armed Forces) as a "refurbished M113", which IMO would put it in the same category as vehicles like the M113A2F1/F2, the M113F3 and the M113F4 (the original ACSV). The lower hull, along with the suspension and engine is that of a PMMC G5, and while the upper superstructure is very M113 like, and it’s possible that it’s been cut out from surplus M113s, it’s obviously been altered quite a bit as well. I know it’s a bit of grey area we're talking here, but to me it feels like we have moved past the territory of refurbished M113s, and that a better description would be “M113/G5 hybrid”.

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor. From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

3 Companies * 14 Boxers+1 Boxer for the BAAINBW? and makes sense for the Triangular Divison Structure with a Single Jäger Bataillon per Brigade for Reserve and Rear Area Security

 

Seems like it. Generalleutnant Alfons Mais stated earlier this year that he sees the requirement for 85 turret Boxers... but I guess nobody wants to pay enough for that to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor. From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

 

Seems like it. Generalleutnant Alfons Mais stated earlier this year that he sees the requirement for 85 turret Boxers... but I guess nobody wants to pay enough for that to happen.

I think thats just for the first Divison until 2027. The other half is then after that until 2032.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

 

Correct. The ACSV project originally called for the production of M113F4s, which were pretty much just a lengthened version of the previous F3 variant, and thus would have been based on surplus M113 hulls that Norway would ship to the manufacturer. As a part of their bid, FFG however decided to offer a G5 based solution as an alternative to the original ACSV design, and it ended up becoming the preferred option.

 

Quote

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor.

 

Very true. This is very much a grey area like the transition from M109A7 to XM1299. Some feel it's well past time for a new designation, others do not

 

Quote

From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

 

Well, the open hull configuration of the ACSV G5 will have a loading area and integrated container mounts for container-based missions, and it can be outfitted with various modules like close-range air defence, radar applications and electronic warfare. Less has been revealed about the closed hull configuration, but it has been claimed that it will have “(…) a large, efficiently protected and flexibly usable interior, which is ideally suited for transport, command or ambulance missions”, which to me would imply a degree of modularity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There also have been new developments regarding the SHORAD systems that Germany plans to procure as part of the NNbS project. First of all, Diehl presented its new IRIS-T SLS Mark III system, which is based on the Eagle V 6x6 variant and contains two slightly angled up shafts each containing two IRIS-T missiles.

This is horrible. Never seen such poorly designed platform.

First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.

Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief. Yes the missile has high maneuverability. But even if it needs a 90 degree turn, it already wastes lots of propellant, severely limiting its range. Absolutely moronic idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are exaggerating. It is not an ideal plattform, but it certainly isn't horrible.

 

On 12/21/2020 at 10:39 PM, heretic88 said:

First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.

 

The Eagle IV and V are based on the UNIMOG chassis. Certainly not perfect offroad vehicles, but performance isn't bad for this class of vehicle. Many (V)SHORAD systems are based on similarly sized wheeled platforms, e.g. look at Avenger, ASRAD, Poprad, 9K33 Osa, etc.

 

On 12/21/2020 at 10:39 PM, heretic88 said:

Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief.

 

It is a trade-off and not idiotic. There are only so many options available within the desired timeframe (ready by 2027). That sort of rules out the development of a new missile - and there frankly are no suitable missiles in NATO for quick adoption, even if the Bundeswehr was open to introduce a new system. Everybody has given up on SHORAD for a long time (or kept old Cold War systems and in service), so the only available solutions are all based on air-launched missiles adopted for ground use - i.e. AIM-9, MICA, IRIS-T, Python & Derby, ASRAMM (as CAMM) and for the US Army's IM-SHORAD also Hellfire. All of these missiles are IMO unsuitable for battlefield air-defence, as they are too large and too heavy to be properly integrated into an armored vehicle (Hellfire isn't too large, but it isn't suited for the anti-air role).

 

So with these missiles one either ends up with just four ready-to-fire missiles (see IRIS-T SLS for Sweden and Norway as well as the new IRIS-T SLS Mark III design) or with a sufficient number of missiles in a large, bulky and barely armored truck (see EMAD/CAMM, MICA-VL, SPYDER, etc). Both solutions are really bad for battlefield air-defence in combat scenarios.

 

The problem with using these missiles in a VLS is that this limits the ability to fire the missile on the move - it is not possible with any of the currently existing systems. That seems to be Diehl's main selling point for the new IRIS-T SLS Mark III variant, though I am not sure if this is actually a requirement. As I said, I'd prefer a cooperation with Norway based on FFG's G5 hull. I am not sure if the Norwegian IRIS-T SLS version will utilize a true VLS or only lift the launchers to a ~45° angle though:

Spoiler

konsepskisse-shorad-fu.jpg.jpg?w=1240&qu

 

Obviously not having a VLS will reduce the range against targets approaching from behind, but it also will increase the range against targets coming from the forward perimeter. As a 360° protection is a requirement by Germany and Diehl markets their solution as 360° capabIe, I believe the negative impact on range won't be too bad.

 

The choice of chassis is logical; not ideal, but logical. It can be slung under both of the candidates of Germany's (now canceled) heavy helicopter program as external load - unlike G5 (too heavy) and BV206 (too bulky/cumbersome), it is in service with the Bundeswehr, it has a mine protection kit and it is cheap. If I had to choose an existing hull in service with the Bundeswehr, I'd prefer go with the Puma or follow Rheinmetall's suggestion and use the Boxer - but that's not feasible within the budget and probably also not desired due to the lower strategic mobility (requires three A400M for two systems). Otherwise G5 and KF41 would be my choice; I'd also think that the Dingo 3 might be a better platform than the Eagle V, but who knows...

 

Spoiler

nnbs_grafik-1024x553.jpg

 

Germany is basically looking for a replacement of the Roland system, but nobody in Germany (and NATO) makes a suitable modern missile. The canceled LFK-NG would have solved this issue, but it was never fully finished and the industry - probably because it was a cooperation between Diehl and MBDA Deuschland, so nobody had full rights - didn't keep working on it as a private venture.

JzK5yNT.jpg

 

The LFK-NG would have featured fire-on-the-move capability from within a VLS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

AIM-9, MICA, IRIS-T, Python & Derby, ASRAMM (as CAMM) and for the US Army's IM-SHORAD also Hellfire. All of these missiles are IMO unsuitable for battlefield air-defence, as they are too large and too heavy to be properly integrated into an armored vehicle

No, they arent too large and heavy. AIM-9 was actually used in an air defence system in the past, the MIM-72 Chaperell

MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg

 

This new system is still terrible. Only an idiot would design such system. VLS (cold launch) is desirable, but not necessary, since rotating turret was invented since ages :) Discarding it is pure laziness. As you can see from this image, even if the target approaching +/- 45 degrees to the launcher, the max range is only around 70% of the theoretically possible. At 90 degrees, it is below 60%. Yes I know its AIM-9X, but the same reduction applies to IRIS-T too. So this means, that the vehicle has only around +/- 90 degrees useable firing arc. Nowhere near the required 360. The IRIS-T missile is excellent, (high resistance to CM, very high maneuverability) but this design totally wastes its potential. As the angle increases, it gets easier to defeat it kinematically. And we didnt even talk about the high parameter limitations... 

The carrier vehicle is not ideal, but more or less acceptable. (I'd vote for the Boxer or maybe the Tpz Fuchs btw) But the fixed launch platform isnt. 

 

1567539698596-moving-faster.jpg?quality=

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that tracked is definitely the best platform to go for such a task.

Puma would start at 10M€ per vehicle.

ACSV seems not a bad idea. Data I found is around 1M€ per vehicle but doubt that FFG is considered.

Lynx could be am option if Puma fails to increase readiness.

 

But I am pretty sure that it will be Boxer since it is known, has right company name, ~3.5M€ pricetag and a performace that will do the job in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, heretic88 said:

No, they arent too large and heavy. AIM-9 was actually used in an air defence system in the past, the MIM-72 Chaperell

 

We have a very different understanding regarding when a system can be considered suited for battlefield air-defence. The MIM-72 Chaparall has a number of issues (most of which are related to using barely modified AIM-9 missiles):

  • The vehicle carries a total of four missiles in a ready-to-launch configuration. That is very poor for battlefield air-defence. Crotale-NG and MIM-146 ADATS carry eight ready-to-fire missiles, Roland (Bundeswehr versions) has ten ready-to-fire missiles (two in the launchers, eight further in the autoloaders).
  • There is no automated system for reloading/restocking the launcher. Manual reloading is cumbersome, as the eight spare missiles carried on the Chaparall are partly disassembled and have to be reassembled on the launcher (this also the reduces weight that the crew has to lift) - i.e. the missile body with rocket motor, the guidance/warhead section and the two fin sections are all separate pieces - which is very time consuming. Reloading has to be done from the exterior, exposing the crew to possible enemy fire. That is very bad and dangerous.
  • There is no radar carried on the vehicle.
  • The missiles of the Chaparall are not stored inside launch containers. As most of the AIM-9 versions (including most used on the Chaparall) are fitted with an IR seeker, they have to be fitted with protective caps/covers preventing dust/mud/snow to collect on the seeker (this is one problem also found on the Robotsystem 98). So the crew has to dismount and remove the caps before firing.
  • The Chaparall has no fire-on-the-move capability. Before firing the whole launcher/turret has to be hydraulically raised (by two feet) into firing position, otherwise it cannot properly elevate
  • The missiles are unprotected and exposed to artillery fragments, handgun and rifle ammunition, etc.

The poor performance of the missile and many design issues could be solved thanks to more modern (and more miniaturized) technology such as e.g. adding at least flat radar panels, but the size of such missiles will make both firing-on-the-move and providing a reasonable number of missiles in a ready-to-fire position (either at the launcher or in an autoloading system) extremely cumbersome to implement. Chaparall could only carry spare missiles due to the partial disassembly and only could be "so small" due to the launcher remaining in a lowered position during travel.

 

If you want a good solution with separate detection and tracking radars (as offered by Diehl's solution with the Spexer radars), then one also must ensure that turret/launcher and radars do not interfere with each other. Furthermore a more modern solution would require sufficient armor (specifically underbelly protection against mines), which increases vehicle height, so that stability with a turret/launcher (high center of gravtiy) might become an issue for firing on the move unless a medium/heavy weight chassis is selected.

 

A modern system like Chaparall or a VLS solution like Robotsystem 98 is suited for defending behind the front-lines, but not suited to be as battlefield air-defence system and for convoy protection.

 

19 hours ago, heretic88 said:

As you can see from this image, even if the target approaching +/- 45 degrees to the launcher, the max range is only around 70% of the theoretically possible. At 90 degrees, it is below 60%. Yes I know its AIM-9X, but the same reduction applies to IRIS-T too.

 

Aside of the graphic saying "not to scale", I'd like to point out that software and hardware can make big differences.

The graphic for the AIM-9X also shows only the movement in the horizontal plane, which is less relevant for determining the maximum range of a ground-launched anti-air missile than the vertical movement (i.e. climbing consumes more propellant).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, your points abut the MIM-72 are 100% valid and I agree with them. But these things arent hard to fix.

- the IRIS-T SLS Mark III also has only 4 ready to fire missiles, so you also need a dedicated TZM. Yes, it has a slight, (and irrelevant) advantage over turreted systems where you need to lift the missiles, but its not a big deal. Put a little crane on the TZM, and you are good to go, you can put any missile in containers, weight isnt an issue anymore.

- radar is not advantageous on a short range system, reveals position to the enemy, and also can be jammed, and makes it more expensive. Passive sensors + a link to an air defense network is better. This is where the absence of a rotating turret is again a horrible disadvantage. In case of the system being jammed, what are the operators doing? No optical sight to use, not even the missile seeker. System rendered useless.

- Im quite surprised that the Chaparel couldnt fire on the move, or at least from short stops with launcher in firing position. You sure it wasnt possible? For Strela-1 and Strela-10, firing from short halts were definitely possible, the gunner didnt have to switch to travel position.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Aside of the graphic saying "not to scale", I'd like to point out that software and hardware can make big differences.

Yes Im aware that the graphic is not to scale, but the engagement zone has realistic proportions based on angle. There was another illustration with more detailed description about the AIM-9X in LOAL mode, but sadly I cannot find it anymore. But basically, it said the same as this one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What of a system like NASAMS? I get that it's not a true independent battlefield SAM but it seems to cover a similar range envelope (with Sidewinder and AMRAAM). In Australia we seem destined to use it roughly in this niche, albeit hopefully with AMRAAM-ER/ESSM alongside something like the Skyranger 30mm above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Boagrius said:

What of a system like NASAMS? I get that it's not a true independent battlefield SAM but it seems to cover a similar range envelope (with Sidewinder and AMRAAM). In Australia we seem destined to use it roughly in this niche, albeit hopefully with AMRAAM-ER/ESSM alongside something like the Skyranger 30mm above.

We (Hungary) also bought the NASAMS/ESSM recently. It is an excellent homeland air defense system. In my opinion, the best in the world, together with the russian S-350. Skyranger is very nice too, our government is also interested in it, but its not decided yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree although given that NASAMS is not as inherently mobile as an independent system like Tor or Roland, I think it really needs AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II to keep it relevant going forward. It's also not ideally suited to C-RAM or C-UAS, hence why something like the 30mm Skyranger strikes me as an attractive complementary system, especially if the two can be datalinked together to share the same targeting information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Norway is concerned, it looks like the future anti-aircraft battery/batteries of the Norwegian Army are going to consist of a mix of maneuver SHORAD (ACSV G5 with IRIS-T SL*) and NASAMS III with High Mobility Launchers. The latter has also been acquired by Australia in addition to cannister launchers, but theirs will be based on the Hawkei PMV instead of the HMMWV.

 

gXpYtkU.jpg

 

* I also would not be surprised if the SHORAD vehicle will also be outfitted with a H&K GMG and programmable ammunition similar to the C-UAS solution selected by Germany. In the latest image I've seen of this vehicle, it has both an RWS and a pintle mount FN MAG, and although the image is too small for me to be able to tell what sort of weapon is mounted in the RWS, I suspect it's a GMG since it seems a bit excessive for such a vehicle to carry 2 MGs (even if they are of different caliber).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2020 at 4:12 AM, Boagrius said:

What of a system like NASAMS?

 

NASAMS is not suited for battlefield air defence - that's why Norway (where NASAMS was developed) is buying IRIS-T SLS mounted on a M113/G5 hull.

 

While Raytheon and Kongsberg have integrated the AIM-9X missile into NASAMS to act as SHORAD system against highly mobile targets, I don't think any operator has decided to actually purchase the AIM-9X missile for NASAMS or uses NASAMS with the AIM-9X.

 

 

As for the system itself, it is mainly used for static asset defence and covers the low end of medium range air-defence. Its footprint (command post vehicle, radar/generator, launcher) is comparable to larger systems, it is not really a quick-to-deploy system that can escort other combat vehicles on the battlefield.

 

I also don't agree with heretic88's opinion regarding NASAMS being the best system of its kind in the world. It has its strong points (using MOTS/COTS components for cost-reduction), but it also has a number of drawbacks. Each launcher vehicle carries only a very small number of missiles (four on the high-mobility launchers, six on truck-mounted or static launchers), there is no ability to defend against ballistic missiles or fast-flying/maneuverable targets (unless using AIM-9X, which massively limits range) and performance is only average. I don't see any specifical advantage over IRIS-T SLM, Sky Sabre and SPYDER which all were shortlisted for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program - unlike NASAMS.

 

The British Sky Sabre system using CAMM and CAMM-ER missiles provides the same range coverage using more modern missiles (of which eight can be carried on a truck) and has a smaller footprint (one truck with launcher, one truck with command post and radar) - though as medium range system it is also unsuited for battlefield air defence. The Swiss MoD concluded that CAMM is incapable of defeating fast flying & highly maneuveerable targets (i.e. small UAVs and/or ballistic missiles) due to the lack of thrust-vectoring, somthing that also applies to NASAMS.

 

SPYDER is basically an Israeli equivalent to NASAMS, using the Python 5 (~ AIM-9X equivalent missile, but using lots of control surfaces instead of thrurst-vectoring) and Derby (~ AIM-120 equivalent). When using both effectors (which is kind of questionable, as they have different ranges), it was considered the best solution by the Swiss MoD before shortlisting, but Rafael failed to disclose relevant information to the Swiss government when it came to the evaluation, resulting in SPYDER being excluded.

 

IRIS-T SLM with its enlarged missiles can provide air-defence up to 40 kilometers range (comparable to AMRAAM-ER/ESSM and CAMM-ER), but offers thurst-vectoring for ballistic missile defence and defeating highly maneuverable UAVs. It ended up being declared the most promising solution for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program, but bad PR and disputes between Diehl and the Swiss MoD (mostly regarding the ability of the missile to hit targets in bad weather, which Diehl proved in actual tests, but Swiss "experts" on their paper evaluation of the seeker declared it unfit for bad weather firing) lead to the program being restarted with a greater focus on range (with apparently only SAMP/T and Patriot being considered).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question, is it possible for the SPYDER, Sky Sabre or IRIS-T SLM to be spread out like the NASAMS? Also, how many EW radars do these systems have? And what about EO sensors? 

As for ballistic missile defense, neither of these are suitable. Even the S-3/400 and Patriot only have limited capabilities, only a bit more than protecting themselves. If you need a serious BMD system, you need something like the THAAD or the israeli Arrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

NASAMS is not suited for battlefield air defence - that's why Norway (where NASAMS was developed) is buying IRIS-T SLS mounted on a M113/G5 hull.

 

While Raytheon and Kongsberg have integrated the AIM-9X missile into NASAMS to act as SHORAD system against highly mobile targets, I don't think any operator has decided to actually purchase the AIM-9X missile for NASAMS or uses NASAMS with the AIM-9X.

 

 

As for the system itself, it is mainly used for static asset defence and covers the low end of medium range air-defence. Its footprint (command post vehicle, radar/generator, launcher) is comparable to larger systems, it is not really a quick-to-deploy system that can escort other combat vehicles on the battlefield.

 

I also don't agree with heretic88's opinion regarding NASAMS being the best system of its kind in the world. It has its strong points (using MOTS/COTS components for cost-reduction), but it also has a number of drawbacks. Each launcher vehicle carries only a very small number of missiles (four on the high-mobility launchers, six on truck-mounted or static launchers), there is no ability to defend against ballistic missiles or fast-flying/maneuverable targets (unless using AIM-9X, which massively limits range) and performance is only average. I don't see any specifical advantage over IRIS-T SLM, Sky Sabre and SPYDER which all were shortlisted for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program - unlike NASAMS.

 

The British Sky Sabre system using CAMM and CAMM-ER missiles provides the same range coverage using more modern missiles (of which eight can be carried on a truck) and has a smaller footprint (one truck with launcher, one truck with command post and radar) - though as medium range system it is also unsuited for battlefield air defence. The Swiss MoD concluded that CAMM is incapable of defeating fast flying & highly maneuveerable targets (i.e. small UAVs and/or ballistic missiles) due to the lack of thrust-vectoring, somthing that also applies to NASAMS.

 

SPYDER is basically an Israeli equivalent to NASAMS, using the Python 5 (~ AIM-9X equivalent missile, but using lots of control surfaces instead of thrurst-vectoring) and Derby (~ AIM-120 equivalent). When using both effectors (which is kind of questionable, as they have different ranges), it was considered the best solution by the Swiss MoD before shortlisting, but Rafael failed to disclose relevant information to the Swiss government when it came to the evaluation, resulting in SPYDER being excluded.

 

IRIS-T SLM with its enlarged missiles can provide air-defence up to 40 kilometers range (comparable to AMRAAM-ER/ESSM and CAMM-ER), but offers thurst-vectoring for ballistic missile defence and defeating highly maneuverable UAVs. It ended up being declared the most promising solution for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program, but bad PR and disputes between Diehl and the Swiss MoD (mostly regarding the ability of the missile to hit targets in bad weather, which Diehl proved in actual tests, but Swiss "experts" on their paper evaluation of the seeker declared it unfit for bad weather firing) lead to the program being restarted with a greater focus on range (with apparently only SAMP/T and Patriot being considered).

 

 


Right, which speaks to why AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II is probably a preferable effector for NASAMS users going forward - it gives the system proper medium range reach with a TVC equipped missile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, heretic88 said:

The question, is it possible for the SPYDER, Sky Sabre or IRIS-T SLM to be spread out like the NASAMS? Also, how many EW radars do these systems have? And what about EO sensors? 

 

These questions are dependent on the exact user's configuration. Australia for example ordered much more capable radars for NASAMS compared to what is used in Norway.

 

For the German military, IRIS-T SLM is a part of the TLVS program (improved MEADS) that is currently dieing a slow and painful death. As part of TLVS, the IRIS-T SLM would be networked with the long range radars (both the MFCR and SR developed for the MEADS program) while also having its own medium-range radar and being networked with lower tiers of air-defence sensors (i.e. the ongoing NNBs program).

 

Germany has not selected an exact radar solution for the medium range yet, but options include Hensoldt's TRML-4D, Thales' Ground Master 200 Multi Mission Compact Ground, SAAB's Giraffe 4A, Selex' Kronos 3D and the CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar from the Australian company CEA Technologies. Some people expect Thales' offer to be picked up, as the Ground Master 200 has already been purchased by the Netherlands (Germany's main partner for air-defence).

 

All of these systems are more capable than the standard AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel F1 of NASAMS - both in range and resolution, though they tend to be also significantly larger. Australia has selected a scaled-down, short-range version of the CEAFAR for its NASAMS (both mounted on Hawkei and mounted on a trailer). I am fairly sure that Sky Sabre uses a mast-mounted Giraffe X1 radar. The Falcon air-defence system (IRIS-T SLM + Lockheed-Martin controll center + SAAB radar) uses a Giraffe A4 radar as offered by SAAB to Germany. No idea what radar Egypt uses with IRIS-T SLM.

 

As far as I can say, being able to easily integrate further sensors (directly or via networking) and being able to spread multiple launchers over a greater distance (while using only a single TOC) is not a stand-out feature of NASAMS, but a normal feature common to medium/long range air defence systems. E.g. each IRIS-T SLM launcher unit can be positioned up to 20 kilometers away from the TOC. I haven't seen any exact figures for NASAMS, but as Kongsberg's official website speaks of "several kilometers" (rather than something like "dozens of kilometers"), I don't think it offers a significantly larger maximum distance between launchers and TOC than similar solutions.

 

17 hours ago, heretic88 said:

As for ballistic missile defense, neither of these are suitable. Even the S-3/400 and Patriot only have limited capabilities, only a bit more than protecting themselves.

 

Agreed. Ballistic missile defence is only possible within a limited scope. However IRIS-T SLM can defeat some types of older ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (even those with reduced radar signature), against which CAMM(-ER) and AMRAAM are pretty useless.

 

14 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Right, which speaks to why AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II is probably a preferable effector for NASAMS users going forward - it gives the system proper medium range reach with a TVC equipped missile. 

 

AMRAAM-ER is not identical with ESSM Block II though and ESSM Block II is not integrated into NASAMS. AMRAAM-ER uses a modified ESSM Block I missile body with the less capable and cheaper seeker from AMRAAM as well as the warhead and datalink antennas. ESSM Block II is a seeker, warhead and datalink upgrade only, so it directly moves in the opposite direction of AMRAAM-ER. Given the different requirements and natures of the datalink (i.e. ESSM Block II being integrated in AEGIS), an unmodified missile is probably incompatible with NASAMS.

 

As per Raytheon, the AMRAAM-ER uses a reworked rocket motor. I have found no reference that the AMRAAM-ER still has the TVC, though I supposed it wouldn't make much sense to remove it. However one should differentiate between a TVC as used on AMRAAM-ER/ESSM Block 1 & 2 and real thrust-vectoring.

 

O3BKh32.pngDgO28_7UcAAQxmT.jpg

While the TVC improves performance, the problem with ESSM Block I and II is the fact, that it the jet vanes are located within the missile's tail section rather than sitting directly at the exhaust. For optimal performance, the jet vanes would sit at the exhaust.

 

I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       



×
×
  • Create New...