Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Very unlikely. 

The CT40 is a joint UK-French project. Both these countries are considered unreliable arms exporters by Israel.

  

The only other existing high caliber guns that I know of are made by Bofors, which is a Swedish company. And as far as I know Sweden still has an embargo on Israel.

 

Hence why I asked about licensing, which you usually have trouble revoking after you handover the specs and collect your fee. And since the Sunnis are now in the same corner of the ring as the Israelis the Europeans would be under very little pressure. Didn't they usually cut off deliveries because they wanted to maintain their Gulf clients?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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    

45 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Hence why I asked about licensing, which you usually have trouble revoking after you handover the specs and collect your fee. And since the Sunnis are now in the same corner of the ring as the Israelis the Europeans would be under very little pressure. Didn't they usually cut off deliveries because they wanted to maintain their Gulf clients?

I don't really know how these licenses work. If they're temporary and have to be renewed, or can be revoked with a penalty at any time, then they're a problem.

 

The current aid program with the US also created a situation where Israel prioritizes US manufacturing instead of Israeli (nice way to maintain qualitative advantage but basically cripple the industry, which is why there is now a review in progress to see whether Israel should turn down the aid or not), so it remains to see if the US will have a new medium caliber program of its own.

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

I don't really know how these licenses work. If they're temporary and have to be renewed, or can be revoked with a penalty at any time, then they're a problem.

 

The current aid program with the US also created a situation where Israel prioritizes US manufacturing instead of Israeli (nice way to maintain qualitative advantage but basically cripple the industry, which is why there is now a review in progress to see whether Israel should turn down the aid or not), so it remains to see if the US will have a new medium caliber program of its own.

 

A license usually includes a transfer of technology for a fee and the promise to not sell it abroad. So, if a crisis happens Israel at worst wouldn't be able to export it and only use it domestically.

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

would appreciate if someone would translate this article from hebrew to english

 

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5312859,00.html#autoplay

 

about the new Merkava 4 barak that suppose to be ready in 2021

IDF uploaded this on its spanish youtube channel
 

Ask me what you want translated to english


Also an interview with a commander about Gaza and the new tank, i will translate from 0:39
"At the same time we are developing a new Merkava model which will enter service in the Armored Corps within the next 3 years called (Merkava) Tank 4 Barak.
This tank will bring many advanced characteristics and will introduce the most advanced technologies a tank can be equipped with. This way the tank will function better on the ground. This enables the crew to operate it during changing situations, be even more lethal and contribute significantly to the Grond Forces of the IDF.
We´ve been working to incorporate this new technologies and adapt our techniques and practices to them. I´m convinced that in case we have to use our Ground Forces, we´ll know how to do it in a focused, pragmatic manner  and we´ll be successful."

All in all seems that the Merkava development heads even more in towards asymmetric warfare and further away from "tank dueling". 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

AI and assaulting without sticking out your head: The new Merkava tank.

 

The upgrade the Merkava 4 Barack is going through is expected to finalize within 3 years and will include a smart computer, a special helmet capable of giving the inhabitants a peripheral view without exiting the tank, new sensors and touch screens.

"It will improve the firing accuracy", said IDF. The Armored Corps is also pleased with the rising motivation for enlistment.

 

IDF is unveiling its new Merkava tank: Merkava Mark 4 tank, which currently serves the active forces of the Armored Corps, in these months, is going through a series of upgrades, so that in 3 years the new tank will enter service - Merkava 4 Barack.

The new tank, developed by MANTAK, includes new technologies that will make it more lethal, faster, and better protected than the current Merkava 4.

The tank will include an AI system that uses a mission computer that combines all the tank's missions and data in a fusion of sensors, and work with the operational network.

 

The mission computer will be responsible for receiving all the data from the operational network and the tank's own sensors and systems, analysis of the data and its presentation to the commander in accordance with the urgency and relevance of the data.

"This way, the mission computer reduces the workload on the crewmen, improves their ability to trust the systems, and will increase the accuracy of location of targets, as well as the chances of hitting them", IDF explained. 

"Other than the mission computer, the Barack will also have an improved gunner's sight and improved commander's sight."

 

The tank will include a series of sensors and innovative technologies such as the IronVision helmet, that aids the soldiers to initiate assaults in urban areas whilst keeping the hatches closed.

 

The sensors will be a significant part of the support of the operational network, that will inter-connect all land assets, that aids and will aid in closing the firing loops faster.

 

Operation of the tank will also undergo an unprecedented technological facelift. Through the use of new touch screens, the work space will be more suitable for the younger generation, easier and more comfortable to use.

With advanced defensive capabilities (Improvement of the Trophy system which intercepts ATGMs), and automation of processes, the tank will lower the burden on the crew, and direct them towards more urgent tasks.

 

Other than the new tank, the structure of the company will also change so that every company will receive a 10th tank and an additional officer for every company.

This will increase the share of tanks in the armored corps in which the TC is an officer.

The IDF explained that "This measure will enable greater effect on the battlefield on better flexibility in wider engagements, on the company level. This change comes from the understanding that the future battlefield will require more people with better qualification and understanding of the operational environment".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that some months ago in this forum we had a debate in the russian BMP-T. Everyone agreed that a vehicle designed to operate in assymetrical contexts should have a specialized FCS/sensor system, seems that with the Barak the IDF is answering that very issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marsh said:

Hi,

At first it does look like a Carpet mine breaching system, but that is not the projectile usually associated with the system.

The rocket may have been modified.

After all, we know it's an engineering variant because so far only these have gotten the Trophy system without a turret, and none else has a hive of rockets in the back, fitted in exactly the same way the Tzefa Shiryon mine breacher is fitted.

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

 

resizedimg115089.jpg.jpg

 

But this one looks rather like M322.

 

Hard to tell from this angle. The M338 was showcased in Eurosatory 2006, so it was ready more than a decade ago. It could be that the M322, or even the M321 were kept just because there was no real threat that warranted their immediate replacement, and most threats required non-kinetic rounds anyway. 

 

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...