Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are

Couple more of the Mk.3-based Ofek    

9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Well... damn!

What's the conclusion on that? How much does it protec? Design considerations? Etc.

Nothing, the paper is more about methodology and not so much about the results of that specific design.

 

The authors completely "namedropped" that design though. Some talk about simulations vs real life tests, and suddenly, *boom*, this is our scale model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot_1.png

 

This is supposedly a Merkava 4 tank damaged in 2014 during operation Protective Edge, in which a couple Hamas militants managed to infiltrate the Zikim beach area, which was full of dunes that made their concealment very easy. They then proceeded to plant a bomb on the rear door of the Mark 4 tank. It detonated but only caused external damage. The tank was there on patrol duty, but could not engage them because of the terrain that made it very hard to maneuver, and because the gun could not be depressed far enough (honestly no tank I know of could). They were later killed by helicopter fire.

 

And just another older image of a Mark 2 just for fun:

Screenshot_9.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the 15th to 16th of May, a ground warfare conference will be held in Israel, where among the topics there will be a debate about future AFV programs in the IDF. It's not going to give it as much focus as there was in last year's conference, but I expect we will get a (relative) wealth of new details about the current running projects:

  • Barack MBT
  • Eitan AFV
  • Namer AFV
  • New howitzer (yet unnamed)
  • Carmel
  • An up to 8 ton light AFV to replace the M113 in some utility roles, and perhaps even some HMMWV.

 

I do not expect as many details as we got last year, and most will likely be repeated. But here is a small list I made of details that we still need to know about these projects, that weren't talked about in a long time.

  • Barack - Will it receive a new engine? Is it on schedule? Were the HMD tests successful? What is the status of the APS development? Will it have additional upgrades to the non-active armor, gun, or other internal structural changes?
  • Eitan - At what point will it be prioritized to get the next gen tech to replace current gen? i.e hybrid instead of diesel, next gen APS instead of current Trophy. 
  • Namer - When will it receive the new turret? When will it receive a new engine? And if it does get a new engine, would it be spare GD883 from Merkava 4, or the new hybrid engines of the Barack (if it does get them)?
  • Howitzer - When will it enter service? Is there going to be a tracked version for maneuvering warfare?
  • Carmel - Is there any progress with the bid for the cockpit design?
  • Light AFV - What will its designated purpose be? 
  • 30mm turret - At what point will it be integrated with the next gen Trophy APS instead of current one?
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 5:59 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the 15th to 16th of May, a ground warfare conference will be held in Israel, where among the topics there will be a debate about future AFV programs in the IDF. It's not going to give it as much focus as there was in last year's conference, but I expect we will get a (relative) wealth of new details about the current running projects:

  • Barack MBT
  • Eitan AFV
  • Namer AFV
  • New howitzer (yet unnamed)
  • Carmel
  • An up to 8 ton light AFV to replace the M113 in some utility roles, and perhaps even some HMMWV.

 

I do not expect as many details as we got last year, and most will likely be repeated. But here is a small list I made of details that we still need to know about these projects, that weren't talked about in a long time.

  • Barack - Will it receive a new engine? Is it on schedule? Were the HMD tests successful? What is the status of the APS development? Will it have additional upgrades to the non-active armor, gun, or other internal structural changes?
  • Eitan - At what point will it be prioritized to get the next gen tech to replace current gen? i.e hybrid instead of diesel, next gen APS instead of current Trophy. 
  • Namer - When will it receive the new turret? When will it receive a new engine? And if it does get a new engine, would it be spare GD883 from Merkava 4, or the new hybrid engines of the Barack (if it does get them)?
  • Howitzer - When will it enter service? Is there going to be a tracked version for maneuvering warfare?
  • Carmel - Is there any progress with the bid for the cockpit design?
  • Light AFV - What will its designated purpose be? 
  • 30mm turret - At what point will it be integrated with the next gen Trophy APS instead of current one?

What's it called and where I can I see live coverage of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, no new information was given about any AFV, with 2 very small exceptions:

1)They gave some info about the Carmel cockpit design - By Q3-Q4 of 2019 the 3 major companies involved (RAFAEL, IAI, and Elbit) are supposed to demonstrate their concepts to the IDF, and thus the Carmel program will end. After the demonstrations, the Carmel program will move onto stage 2 and will likely be renamed. 

 

2)The Barack MBT will not get a hybrid engine, yet. The Carmel will be the first one to get such an engine, and the time it will take for it to reach down to the Merkava-based AFVs is unknown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/34334

 

Apparently Israeli defense industries are in disarray, tens of thousands may lose jobs, and manufacturing is pretty much all American now. I'll try to make this as short as possible.

 

Context on the US aid to Israel:

  1. The past aid deal that will expire this year, allowed Israel to use 25% of the money domestically, and to purchase fuels. 
  2. Current aid deal removes the conversion of USD to NIS for domestic purchases, as well as the ability to purchase fuels. 
  3. About $300 million were used on fuels, and over $800 million for domestic purchases.

The big industries were given a very short notice on this, and they may lose over $1 billion in acquisition on a yearly basis. Small industries have no option to brace for impact, and warn that local production capability may be lost eventually.

 

But they also gave a few other details, that are relevant to this thread:

  1. Eitan is almost 100% made in the US.
  2. Namer is 70% made in the US.
  3. Merkava 4 is 30% made in the US.

It's also easy to notice that the more recent the AFV is, the bigger its share is in the US. This could mean that Israel might have some good chance of selling the US one of these, eventually. Especially for a Stryker replacement and NGCV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know about vehicles but;

 

Iron Dome experimentation and assessment for short-range air de- fense


The budget request included $38.0 million in PE 64020A for cross functional team (CFT) advanced development and proto- typing.
The committee understands the Army established six CFT pilots to examine how the Army could leverage existing resources and ac- celerate getting needed capability to the warfighter. The Army’s critical capability gap for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) remains protecting the maneuvering force and is aware the AMD CFT pilot is focused on accelerating delivery of a maneuver short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability. The committee commends the AMD CFT for getting an approved directed requirement for an interim- maneuver SHORAD capability that accelerated the original sched- ule by 5 years. The committee notes the AMD CFT is also review- ing other AMD capability gaps for the protection of fixed and semi- fixed sites. The committee expects the AMD CFT to immediately address capability gaps in the areas of indirect fire protection capa- bility and AMD.
Since 2011, Congress has provided over $1.5 billion for the pro- curement of Iron Dome batteries for the State of Israel, a system with demonstrated capability against a wide-range of threats. There is value in experimenting with the Iron Dome system through demonstrations to assess operational suitability for the fixed and semi-fixed site AMD mission, and M–SHORAD missions. Such demonstrations will evaluate challenges associated with inte- gration of the Iron Dome command and control system with the ex- isting AMD C2 system and sensors.
The committee recommends $68.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, in PE 64020A to support the acquisition of Iron Dome hardware and associated integration activities, for the operational demonstration of the Iron Dome system against a range of threats to evaluate issues associated with the following:

(1) integrating the Iron Dome launcher into a U.S. Army AMD architecture for complimentary support of fixed, semi-fixed, and M– SHORAD operations;
(2) re-designing the Iron Dome launcher to be compatible with the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Multi-Mission Launcher; and
(3) potential options for accelerating development of the Skyhunter missile.
Further, the committee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by April 2, 2019, on the Army’s plans for this experiment and dem- onstration. If warranted by the demonstration results, the com- mittee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a follow-on briefing on the advisability and feasibility of rapidly transitioning Iron Dome hardware for immediate use, with budgetary rec- ommendations and schedules for accelerated procurement of addi- tional systems.

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

Yes. The dude who made it said he didnt like boxy cars.

Does this actually have to do with protection, or is it just for fashion? Because I feel a lot of armored car producers try to make their vehicles cool over practical in some cases:
Oshkosh-JLTV-side-profile-01.jpg
SandCat-4x4-light-armored-vehicle-ambula

crab-armored-vehicle.jpg

5435789_original.jpg

 

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 Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • 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. 
       

×
×
  • Create New...