Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

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

Recoil system of the M256:  

1 hour ago, Serge said:

Sometimes, there’s talk about the ultimate recon platform. So, an old proposal from Bacon and Sharony during FSCS program :

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1999.jf/1fscs99.pdf

and, this is not an Ajax nor a Boxer like solution. 

 

It's not very economical, or logistically wise to make a dedicated platform for recon role, especially considering the low number of recon vehicle relative to IFVs and MBTs.

 

But they do add a radar and mast-mounted sensors to the vehicle, which I believe is a must. I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle.

 

I have already expressed my shock about the Aussie Boxer CRV not having either of these, and I am now pondering about whether to write a strongly worded letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's not very economical, or logistically wise to make a dedicated platform for recon role, especially considering the low number of recon vehicle relative to IFVs and MBTs.

The platform is nothing more than a chassis. So it’s possible to develop a full family of AFV (starting with an ARV).

Look at the BAE MPF proposal. I’m sure one can design ARV, a light APC. Nothing complexe. 

 

Look at the Ofek. It’s a former Merkava Mk2. Look at the Turk Kaplan....

 

Quote

But they do add a radar and mast-mounted sensors to the vehicle, which I believe is a must. I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle.

Yes. 

When I sarted, recon was only relying on observation to detect. For more than 20 years, a new concept has been completing recon : ISTAR. This FSCS is a real ISTAR and can the kind of concept you were calling for on your blog. 

 

Look at the Lancer of the TRACER program :

LANCER-TRACER-e1402901873590.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Karamazov said:

May be its test bed on basis of the old M1 tturret. Or it can be layout of the new turret.

 

I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. 

 

wI5HJwe.jpg

 

Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't).

Edited by Renegade334
I stand corrected - the CATTB still had two topside hatches.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. 

 

wI5HJwe.jpg

 

Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't).

 

Is there anything on the performance of the 140mm gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm...I don't have any DTIC docs on the XM291 and its performance; Ogorkiewicz did however give a couple stats for 140mm smoothbore guns in his book Tanks - A 100 Years of Evolution:

Quote

In keeping with the developments in other countries, K+W Thun had also developed a 140mm smooth bore tank gun. This was installed in a Leopard 2, from which it was fired for the first time in 1989, and its APFSDS projectiles proved capable of penetrating about 1,000mm of steel armour. But, like that of the other 140mm guns, its development was not pursued beyond trials.

 

And:

Quote

A general use of automatic loading systems would have followed if the studies begun in 1982 had led to the adoption of 140mm guns as successors of the 120mm guns because their ammunition was far too large and too heavy to handle, a typical round weighing 38kg and being 1.5m long overall. Guns of 140mm were the subject of an agreement reached in 1988 between Britain, France, Germany and the United States about an interoperable tank gun, or Future Tank Main Armament (FTMA), and prototypes of such a gun were built and fired by 1992. The muzzle energy of their APFSDS projectile reached 23 MJ, or almost twice the muzzle energy of the most powerful of the projectiles of the 120mm guns, but as the Soviet threat receded the development of the FTMA was abandoned. What its performance might have been is indicated by a 140mm smooth bore gun that was built in Switzerland and that in 1999 perforated 1,000mm of armour firing APFSDS projectiles with a 900mm long penetrator.

 

And then there was a short comparison with 120mm ETC gun performance:

Quote

However, even though 120mm ETC guns were considered capable of firing projectiles with a muzzle energy of 15 MJ, their performance still fell short of that of 140mm solid propellant guns, which could fire projectiles with an energy of 18 to 23 MJ and at the same time enjoyed the advantages of being based on well proven technology.


I tried retracing Ogorkiewicz' sources but my google-fu proved neurasthenic today. The only thing I was able to fish in a short amount of time was this study by Lanz (yes, that Lanz) that does give some 140mm stats: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/lakowski.2006-09/Penetration_Limits_of_Conventional_Large_Caliber_Anti_Tank_-_Kinetic_Energy_Projectiles.pdf 

 

Anyway, I think this conversation would find a better home in the Ballistics Science Discusion section instead, where more competent people (Bronezhilet, for one) than me could bring you better answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Data on CATTB tests is sparse. We know it has been used to test the 140mm ATACS gun with XM91 autoloader and the AIPS diesel.

 

I once did some dumpster diving in DTIC and found this: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740

Title: Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Appropriation. Supporting Data FY 1994, Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress, April 1993

The title and content imply the CATTB was still being tested in 1993, with projected testing for 1994, despite rumors that it was canned before then.

 

P.246 (AKA p.261 in PDF reader):

Quote
(U) FY (Fiscal Year) 1992 Accomplishments


. (U) Demonstrated Advanced Integrated Propulsion System in CATTB
. (U) Conducted CATTB automotive and signature management demonstrations
. (U) Conducted CATTB Chassis system integration laboratory demonstration

 

(U) FY 1993 Planned Program:
. (U) Support AIPS diesel testing in the CATTB and provide/test propulsion upgrades

 

 

The AIPS in question is the XAP-1000 diesel engine.

 

P.247 (AKA p.262 in PDF reader):

Quote
(U) FY (Fiscal Year) 1992 Accomplishments

. (U) Demonstrated diesel Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) in CATTB
. (U) Began additional modifications to the propulsion system to support 270 volt vehicle

 

 

And that's it...unless "CATTB" suddenly became an umbrella term that can be applied to any chassis or type of vehicle and not just that particular M1 variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/08/29/army-to-bring-new-vehicle-protection-technologies-to-fleet-as-early-as-2020/

 

Reiterating what was previously said:

  • Seeking tech for anti-KE APS.
  • Interested in signature management tech, currently mature enough for production.
  • Developing reactive armor tiles for AMPV and other vehicles after that, probably not NIH (previously customers of Rafael).
  • Looking at developmental systems for the future (NGCV).
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2018 at 7:58 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 

I believe a radar should be applied to every vehicle, and a mast to the platoon commander vehicle.

 

I have already expressed my shock about the Aussie Boxer CRV not having either of these, and I am now pondering about whether to write a strongly worded letter.

 

Who says the BoxerCRV doesn’t have a mast with a sensor package?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. 

As you may know, I found it with Solomon’s blog. 

 

They have lost ACV, now AAV-SU ?

They keep the NGAFV on track for MPF.

 

If this anecdote is legit.

SNAFU, the reports on the AAV-SU are genuinely correct. Their has been a 90 Day stop work. Which is not surprising this new (force protection) management has dicked everything up. All AAV SMEs have quit the project or left the company, most took a pay cut and were replaced by SUB CONTRACTORS AS LEADS. This being said they all left. These vehicles are being built by subpar integrators. SAIC has built and delivered 1 vehicle in the time it took a team of AAV techs to deliver 10. The whole ON TIME ON BUDGET concept is wrong. This new AAV-SU project has been swamped by Management with PMPs and all the credentials you could ask for, but it has regressed since the SMEs have left. This is why SAIC cannot hang with the big boys, incompetency and a good ole boy network will kill a project in heart beat. These clowns that are in charge couldn’t build two vehicles alike “hence” FORCE PROTECTION.

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 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...