Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Noice. Then what's behind the Ofek? Some new M113 variant? 

And any idea what new stuff they put on the Ofek other than Satcom?

Just a nagmash pikud, a quick Google search tells me it's called M577 in english as someone said.

 

I didn't go inside the Ofek for obvious reasons, but from what I've seen it looked nothing ground breaking just a heavier nagmash pikud. I know littile of command APCs to be honest.

 

The guy in the pic is trying the refuel the damn thing, considering the two back refueling ports are gone due to the superstructure, it took him some time xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lox said:

Just a nagmash pikud, a quick Google search tells me it's called M577 in english as someone said.

 

I didn't go inside the Ofek for obvious reasons, but from what I've seen it looked nothing ground breaking just a heavier nagmash pikud. I know littile of command APCs to be honest.

 

The guy in the pic is trying the refuel the damn thing, considering the two back refueling ports are gone due to the superstructure, it took him some time xD

 

Does it have Merkava-like or Namer-like rear hatch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s possible because some Ofek have heavily rebuilt rear with a high opening compatible with APC ramp. 

Large doors are important for CP because the staf spends many times outside of the vehicle. Very of often, you need to talk to someone inside staying outside. So, the CP while static, keeps its doors open. 

You must close the ramp at nighttime because, at night, lights attract problems more than noise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason why the new variant won't have the Namer's door. Actually, it's probably even taller than the Namer's:

Spoiler

S23fIcN.jpg

 

I'd see why some stuff weren't implemented on the very earliest variants. Perhaps it wasn't even a serial production variant, the one we've seen with the legacy hatch. 

But there's no reason why not go the whole way with the new ones, especially when they're adding so much gear that is so much more expensive than a door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends. 

Tsahal’s got hundreds of Mk2 chassis and nobody needs hundreds of pikuds (but China and India of course). And we have to keep in mind the Eitan pikud to come. 

 

So what is the interest of the legacy clamshell ?

Tsahal is specific in that it use heavy patrollers on old tank chassis. They are mixt of patrol vehicles, APC and observation posts. 

On the other hand, if the rebuilt of a vehicle is limited, you save money and you’re shortening « time to market ».

The clamshell configuration is not a problem for patrolling. The vehicle will keep it closed as a rule. 

 

So, Tsahal can have two dedicated options on the meantime :

- APC rear ramp for pikud like use ;

- the less expensive and faster to provide clamshell legacy design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Serge said:

It depends. 

Tsahal’s got hundreds of Mk2 chassis and nobody needs hundreds of pikuds (but China and India of course). And we have to keep in mind the Eitan pikud to come. 

 

So what is the interest of the legacy clamshell ?

Tsahal is specific in that it use heavy patrollers on old tank chassis. They are mixt of patrol vehicles, APC and observation posts. 

On the other hand, if the rebuilt of a vehicle is limited, you save money and you’re shortening « time to market ».

The clamshell configuration is not a problem for patrolling. The vehicle will keep it closed as a rule. 

 

So, Tsahal can have two dedicated options on the meantime :

- APC rear ramp for pikud like use ;

- the less expensive and faster to provide clamshell legacy design. 

That is only if we assume the IDF decides to go the Achzarit and Nagmashot road again with the Mark 2, but it won't. That's what the Namer is for. 

With such low numbers of CP vehicles (relative to MBTs) it's best not to bother with multiple variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

Does it have Merkava-like or Namer-like rear hatch?

Something bigger than both it seemed, and the style was more so Namer-like, 

 

7 hours ago, Serge said:

It’s possible because some Ofek have heavily rebuilt rear with a high opening compatible with APC ramp. 

Large doors are important for CP because the staf spends many times outside of the vehicle. Very of often, you need to talk to someone inside staying outside. So, the CP while static, keeps its doors open. 

You must close the ramp at nighttime because, at night, lights attract problems more than noise. 

This guy knows

 

17 minutes ago, Newtonk said:

Thank you, Lox, most intriguing. From a strictly modelling perspective, what does the roof look like, please? Thank you. 

Sadly idk, sorry I feel like a tease, but I wasn't gonna climb on top of it in the middle of thier exercise xD

 

I've also came across this fella

IMG_20180823_081428.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

Is Ofek from exhibition a serial variant or demonstrator?

Perhaps it'll get better armor on the superstructure, but I'm not too sure what to think about a Merkava 2 used as a CP vehicle. I don't see why it's hard to allocate 1 vehicle out of 100 for command (brigade level), by using a Mark 4 chassis, with a Trophy and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Perhaps it'll get better armor on the superstructure, but I'm not too sure what to think about a Merkava 2 used as a CP vehicle. I don't see why it's hard to allocate 1 vehicle out of 100 for command (brigade level), by using a Mark 4 chassis, with a Trophy and all.

Golani do that, I've posted one of them on a trailer a while back, tho I don't think they have trophy on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lox said:

Golani do that, I've posted one of them on a trailer a while back, tho I don't think they have trophy on them

You mean they use a standard Namer command vehicle? 

I assume they'll be the first to get the Trophy, that is, right after the 603rd combat engineers. Means Givati are probably getting the Golani's old APCs kinda like they inherited the Achzarit from Golani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Perhaps it'll get better armor on the superstructure, but I'm not too sure what to think about a Merkava 2 used as a CP vehicle. I don't see why it's hard to allocate 1 vehicle out of 100 for command (brigade level), by using a Mark 4 chassis, with a Trophy and all.

There are different points to consider. 

What is the very interest in using Mk4 as an Ofek chassis ? None. 

Pikud are spending their live concealed prying not to be detected.

 

In a country facing a daily risk of war, priorities must be the ruler :

- 1% can represent a company ;

- Mk2 are free. So you can use the budget somewhere else ;

- facilities capabilities are a natural  regulator. If it takes 100h to manufacture an Ofek and 400h for a Namer, there is no choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

  Hide contents

8_1.jpg

 

What about this MLRS?

 

Just 2 quad packs of EXTRA rockets (150km range) on a HEMTT. Nothing special about it. It will enter service, whether in this configuration or another, in the coming years as the IDF will create its short range ballistic missile arm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sirpad said:

Serial variant of the new model, based on the Mk 3 chassis - Thought someone would have noticed the stark difference by now.

@Lox and @VPZ I can't believe you guys missed that.

 

But, there are no out of service Merkava 3 chassis, at least as far as I know. There are still about 2 brigades and a half of Merkava 2 tanks. It makes no sense to me, to use a Merkava 3 chassis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Just 2 quad packs of EXTRA rockets (150km range) on a HEMTT. Nothing special about it. It will enter service, whether in this configuration or another, in the coming years as the IDF will create its short range ballistic missile arm. 

 

It's special, because this missiles surpass standard MLRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VPZ said:

 

It's special, because this missiles surpass standard MLRS.

Yeah but it was talked about for quite a while, a while ago, when Liberman declared the IDF needs another branch to operate long range missiles. 

It's going to be EXTRA and probably either the Predator Hawk from IMI, or LORA from IAI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

@Lox and @VPZ I can't believe you guys missed that.

 

But, there are no out of service Merkava 3 chassis, at least as far as I know. There are still about 2 brigades and a half of Merkava 2 tanks. It makes no sense to me, to use a Merkava 3 chassis.

I think I lost you, are you suggesting the Ofek is based of the Mk3? In what pic can you see it's serial number?

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 Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • 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).
×
×
  • Create New...