Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside. 

 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. 
If the RT20 was the Kongsberg proposal, you’re right. This turret was designed for chassis which can’t support heavy solutions. 
So, it’s hard to believe in the Oshkosh capability to integrate an APS or ATGM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

You’re forgetting the added height from the plate that supports the MCT-30 turret. It’s the about the same as the Oshkosh turret when you factor this in. No plans for an APS are you sure? They actually all had ATGM capabilities, just not presented with the launchers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still is an ongoing investigation on APS suited for the Stryker with the Rafael Trophy VPS and the Rheinmetall StrikeShield being evaluated. Due to Covid-19, the program was delayed for a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To repeat myself from twitter, the roof of the Dragoon isn't really higher than Oshkosh's vehicle though which implies GLDS's proposed vehicle has a taller roof for a different reason.

 

Here are some bigger versions of the pics.

Spoiler

OKrR8hs.jpg

OylNOPU.jpg

oFHv8On.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

To repeat myself from twitter, the roof of the Dragoon isn't really higher than Oshkosh's vehicle though which implies GLDS's proposed vehicle has a taller roof for a different reason.

 

Here are some bigger versions of the pics.

  Hide contents

OKrR8hs.jpg

OylNOPU.jpg

oFHv8On.jpg

 

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall. 

 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

 

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

 

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want. wAOTW2a.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want. wAOTW2a.png

 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Beer said:

Well, it's the the military who sets the requirements. The manufacturers only offer solution to those requirements.

Yes. 
But the very problem with the Stryker is that it was supposed to be an interim AFV. So, it must be very difficult to express any request. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. 
But the very problem with the Stryker is that it was supposed to be an interim AFV. So, it must be very difficult to express any request. 

 

Stryker being an interim AFV was dropped before it entered service. Stryker A1 is a different vehicle altogether with the same name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

These turrets are designed to be modular, you’d be surprised what types of modifications they can do with a simple looking turret. Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

 

That’s your interpretation, and not necessarily objective truth. The PDF-document only mentions that these are options for the RT-series, which includes the RT60, and that an ATGM can be fitted to a roof mounted RWS on an MCT-30/RT40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

That’s your interpretation, and not necessarily objective truth. The PDF-document only mentions that these are options for the RT-series, which includes the RT60, and that an ATGM can be fitted to a roof mounted RWS on an MCT-30/RT40.

Did you not see the picture I posted above showing the MCT-30 with a Javelin ATGM and Hydra 70 rocket pod mounted to the sides of the turret? One would assume this turret doesn’t need an RWS to launch ATGMs. If a manned Bradley turret can mount Iron Fist why wouldn’t this turret be able to? Call it my interpretation but it seems really pointless for Kongsberg to offer a turret that can’t fire ATGMs or mount an APS. It would also be a terrible decision for the Army to buy a turret that can’t utilize these options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote that Kongsberg claims the MCT-30/MT40 can be outfitted with an ATGM and APS. I merely pointed that this isn’t at all clear from the source you provided. In other words, you cannot use this source to strengthen your case.

 

Yes, I’m also well aware that Javelin missiles have been attached to the side of the MCT-30/RT40 in the past, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good solution that any military would want to adapt. On the contrary, the U.S. Army never bothered attaching Javelins to their MCT-30s, and has instead fielded Strykers with CROWS-J to complement them. And despite showing up in photos of the ACV prototype, it doesn’t seem like such a solution will be making its way into the USMC either since they have apparently acquired the lighter and more compact MT20 instead, a turret that is likely less capable of mounting such equipment.

 

(Also, am I the only one struggling with getting my posts submitted lately?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Dud.  Has anybody taken Iron Fist into service?  Lots of "trials" but no contracts?

 

Actually yes, and we have talked about the Netherlands adopting it for their CV90 on this forum before.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • 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...