Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

On 02/03/2018 at 12:53 PM, JNT11593 said:

Good lord that's sexy. I seriously hope the U.S. Army selects it, and I can't think of a good reason they wouldn't. It's the only purposed built light tank. Has been ready for production since the 90s, domestically designed and built, and I'd imagine if the need arose the could drop the XM360E1 in it for addition firepower, even if ammo capacity did take a hit.


Trying to find a link to the M8 “Thunderbolt” concept demonstrator that was fitted with a 120mm gun. That activity included firing tests, as we’ll a show an electric drive, IIRC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

Recoil system of the M256:  

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was

Elbit will be participating in the US Army's NGCV tender as a key systems supplier, for systems it develops for the Carmel, some of which are supposed to enter service in 2020 and were already tested, and some still under development.

It also touches on the Iron Fist in a very general way, but I included it because it's important to note that under Elbit, the acquisition process for the US could be hastened and overall improved, as it will handle with a larger company that is better able to respond to issues or qualms that may arise.

Here's the link:



It's in Hebrew so I'll translate:



Elbit CEO: We Plan To Participate In The US Army's Future AFV Tender.


Bezhalel Machlis told analysts that Elbit intends to participate in the US's future AFV project - the NGCV, with one of the AFV's manufacturers. Additionally Bezhalel said the debate around IMI's acquisition has gone out of proportion: "IMI is a $500 million company. Elbit is a $4 billion company. We'll handle the acquisition".


Bezhalel (Buzhi) Machlis, CEO of Elbit Systems, said yesterday (Tuesday) that the company intends to participate in the US's future AFV under the name NGCV. According to Buzhi, the tender includes in very simplistic terms 2 parts - Irons and systems. Elbit will compete on the systems' side. And whomever makes the connection between IMI's acquisition, that is slated to be finalized sometime in July 2018, probably won't be wrong.


"The future platform in the US splits into two - Iron, where Elbit has no advantage. And systems for the platform. Through appropriate cooperation with the platform's manufacturers in the US, this is the place in which we aim to be, on the basis of our technologies that are developed for the Carmel as well.

I remind you that we're sitting in the Bradley, M270 MLRS, and the Stryker, with our own technologies".


-snip- (irrelevant to the topic, economical plans etc).


During the convention, Buzhi was asked about the Iron Fist that IMI develops. The question was directed towards Bezhalel's faith in the system under the reality that the MoD chose the Trophy system for the Merkava tank and Namer APC and IFV. 

"The concept of the Iron Fist is interesting. It produces a light and cheap interceptor for relatively far away threats. That is, threats that are not in the immediate vicinity", said Buzhi.


"Iron Fist is an ideal solution for 8x8 vehicles and light AFVs. These cannot carry a large system. The system is in trials in the US and in additional countries. I believe Israel is considering it for its own platform (likely Eitan). One needs to remember that IMI is a relatively small company, and there is a very complex integration between the system's components. For Elbit, the integration will be easier to complete. We can arrive with the Iron Fist to the market faster, and to more markets. There is little alternative for such a system for light AFVs and vehicles. Also, we come with a full suite for the upgrade and modernization of AFVs. Sights, BMS, active protection and more. I remind that Elbit is already inside many land platforms in the western world.









Link to post
Share on other sites

BAE wants the Army to buy 40CT guns and is going to have a demonstration at Fort Benning.



Aware the Army wants bigger guns for its combat vehicles, BAE Systems is pitching its CT40 cannon and cased-telescoped ammunition for service officials during a live-fire demonstration this week at Fort Benning, Ga.

BAE hasn’t settled on a turret integrator with which it will offer the cannon to the Army, so Wednesday’s demonstration will be done from a static stand and involve just the cannon and loading and fire control systems. Air burst, point detonation and old-fashioned steel “kinetic energy” rounds will be demonstrated for the Army VIPs.

“The aim of the demo is to put the now-qualified cased telescoped technology in front of the U.S. Army to explain that the maturity is there and we are ready now to start a transfer of technology to the U.S. and start bringing that cannon to the U.S. as an option for their systems,” Rory Chamberlain, CT40 program manager for BAE, told reporters March 16 at BAE offices outside Washington, D.C.

What the Army VIPs will see is a 40mm cannon firing a range of ammunition at several different targets that include a trench and a hardened bunker. The ammunition is cased-telescoped rounds that are self-contained in a shell about the size and shape of two beer cans stacked atop one another.

France and the U.K. already have mounted the cannon on the Ajax tracked fighting vehicle and Jaguar armored recon vehicle, respectively. Those vehicles are employed in much the way Stryker and Bradley are operated by the U.S. Army, Chamberlain said. Aside from Stryker, BAE had demonstrated the CT40 on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The company is also eyeing the Army’s Next-Generation Combat Vehicle that will replace either Bradley or the Abrams tank or possibly both.

“So, in an unmanned [configuration] on a Stryker, a manned [configuration] on Bradley and NGCV, but who knows what that’s going to be, but we’re looking at that,” Chamberlain said.

Representatives from the Stryker, Bradley and NGCV program offices will be present at the Fort Benning demonstration. Because the cannon takes up significantly less space than a conventional breech-loading cannon, it can be integrated into either a manned or unmanned turret, Chamberlain said. The company is in talks with turret manufacturers and will make a decision on who it will partner with and where in the United States the cannons will be made after the demonstration and it can gauge Army interest, Chamberlain said.

The CT40 consists of the cannon itself, an ammunition handling-and-loading system, gun-control equipment a fire control computer and the gun mount. The magazine can carry between 70 and 100 rounds, but depends on several factors including the turret volume and whether it is manned or unmanned. Each round is stacked atop one another and houses both the propellant and the projectile in a one-kilogram uniform package.

 Unique to the CT40 is its ammunition handling system or loader. It functions as a fixed magazine packed with cased telescoping rounds of several different variants. The cannon stays aimed in any direction while the breech spins clockwise to accept a round that the gunner calls up, then spins back into position. When fired, the cased round creates an airtight seal with the barrel, fires the round and then spins to accept the next round, which pushed the spent case out the side of the turret.

“This gives great space-saving advantages in terms of the cannon itself,” Chamberlain said.

The CT40’s unique breech system also allows the cannon to elevate to 75 degrees, much higher than the 40-or-so degrees that current vehicles can reach. The high-firing capability is ideal for hitting aerial targets like drones and helicopters and higher floors in dense urban terrain where the Army plans to fight future conflicts.

Space is at a premium on both the Bradley and Stryker. The Army already has mounted a 30mm cannon atop a Stryker and sent a few dozen to Europe to test the operational concept of an upgunned infantry fighting vehicle. Those vehicles were fielded on an accelerated timeline to fulfill an urgent need for greater mobility and firepower to counter Russia along NATO’s eastern flank.

Because the initial requirement was for a turret that did not displace any of the soldier space inside the Stryker, the Army went with an unmanned turret. There is no guarantee that the service will stick with the decisions it made for Dragoon.

“From our point of view, Stryker lethality is open. As much as they’ve got the Dragoon … the lethality and the requirements are still to be decided.”

Saving space is even more important on Bradley, which is quickly exhausting its margin of space, weight and power for new weapons and sensors. Bradley currently carries a 25mm cannon in a manned turret.

“To put a conventional 30mm in a space of a 25mm is going to be pretty much impossible,” Chamberlain said. “We know we can up-gun the Bradley without effecting … the ring that the guys sit in. Generally when you put a bigger caliber that ring has to get bigger in a manned turret.”

The mechanism works on the same principal as a drink machine dispensing aluminum cans. The rounds do not need to be loaded in any particular order. Depending on the enemy threat or obstacle, the gunner can call up one of several offensive effects including armor-piercing, airburst, a traditional ballistic round or point detonation round. Point detonation pierces hardened structures like bunkers before detonating inside. The airburst round is dual mode and can detonate above the heads of enemy troops or in the air to defeat helicopters, small drones or low-flying aircraft.

“You can have all those five in the loader if you wanted to and any future ammunition that we develop … all that capability is there to select the round you want,” Chamberlain said. “It all depends on the integrator, but all the capability is there.”


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JNT11593 said:


I wonder if they dropped the AIM-9s or if this thing can switch up modules. I also like how it kept the .50


It should be able to use any missile that fits, but the RFP specifically asked for Stingers and Hellfires.


The centerline M3P is new. I guess the Army made up its mind on which gun it wanted.


I like that 30x113mm/Javelin armed Protector RWS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 5:52 PM, Ramlaen said:


Its really sad to be honest. It’s like that old dog at the pound that’s been there for a few years that’s not been put down yet, hoping for someone to come get him 😞

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.

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 EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:

      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

  • Create New...