Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MRose said:

 

So a trash can on a conscript's head?

 

 

 

I'd figure the coordinates would be shared by the command center and the firing solution would be created automatically. I'd imagine this is going to be using Topgun since massed artillery and urban environments don't mix well together.

 

It will use TopGun, but not exclusively. Even in urban settings there is some room for statistical firing. 

For the more accurate jobs, the artillery corps will actually prefer to utilize the rocket artillery systems that are already equipped with precision guided weapons.

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    

1 hour ago, MRose said:

I guess we'll have to see if this system lives up to expectations or not. The archer comes to mind for sub-par automated systems.

Yeah I remember back in the day I used to shit on the Archer as much as I do on the Chally 2 nowadays. It could be a decent system but completely fucked up by a lack of a very simple feature called emergency manual loading. And of course a very small ammunition belly that removes all prospects for mission flexibility.

 

But this one is not the same, if we're going to judge by the Sholef.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MRose said:

Was just pointing out how hard automated systems are. The K9A2 and Koalitsiya look like they're shaping up to be pretty great systems. Then again there's always the XM2001, so these systems aren't particularly ground breaking.

You mean K9A1, I suppose, and from what I've gathered it's only rather small upgrades to the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MRose said:

Might be an interesting program if the IDF fields a RAP, so they can do fire support from Israel proper. If you can hit 100km out (lol) without having to worry about any of the upside of tracks, then that's a pretty big win.

At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells.

Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years.

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

Might be an interesting program if the IDF fields a RAP, so they can do fire support from Israel proper. If you can hit 100km out (lol) without having to worry about any of the upside of tracks, then that's a pretty big win.

At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells.

Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years.

 

I'd imagine that the US will be looking at an operating concept like this, since the M109 is old as shit and there's no need to follow that closely to armor if you have a 50+ km range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

I'd imagine that the US will be looking at an operating concept like this, since the M109 is old as shit and there's no need to follow that closely to armor if you have a 50+ km range.

The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces. 

It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value. 

 

Allowing artillery to stay farther behind is not a good reason to extend its range, especially if range extention costs good money.

 

M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name.

The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces

It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value

 

That'd be the role of AF and rocket artillery, probably.  Even in the video you posted the artillery was behind the C4  post.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name.

The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.

 

The A6 and A7 were piecemeal upgrades because the XM2001 and NLOS-C never came to fruition, I'd be highly surprised in 10 years if they wasn't a replacement program, especially when you get into HE stuff. The AMPV was because the NGCV failed, which I'm sure you're aware of the details, and the AMPV is no spring chicken. We'll probably get something based off the other replacement programs and highly robotized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MRose

The NGCV did not fail in any way.

The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project.

The rest are the MPF which is in a good state at the moment, an MBT whose development hasn't yet started, and the OMFV for which the US Army funded several prototypes already, to be built by 2020 and 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The NGCV did not fail in any way.

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. 

Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
6 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

AMPV isn't part of the NGCV, it got procured because the FCS and GCV failed and the M113 is old as shit and needs a replacement ASAP. The AMPV predates the NGCV by 4 years.

The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. 

Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively?

 

My bad you were referring to the CFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MRose said:

Added an extra letter, meant the GCV the one which if the Namer had the turret it does today, would've won.

 

Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.

 

Quote

Last week, the U.S. Army began operational assessments of existing combat vehicles to validate capabilities against requirements for a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The effort, known as the Non-Developmental Vehicle, or NDV, Assessments will take place on the border of Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

The assessments are being conducted on domestic vehicles -- the M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Double V-Hull, and a Turretless Bradley -- as well as the Israeli Namer and Swedish CV-9035, both international vehicles. 

The NDVs included in the assessments feature a wide range of unique capabilities and attributes, which will allow the Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of multiple configurations and families of vehicles to better understand requirements achievability.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/80185/The_Desert_Heats_Up_as_GCV_Kicks_Off_Non_Developmental_Vehicle__NDV__Assessments/

 

Not just the CBO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Namer was heavily penalized for only having a M2 and not a 30mm, FWIW. It's not unreasonable to believe that if it had the current turret, it would've been graded drastically better and it also met the squad requirement vs the Puma. Just pointing out a missed opportunity for Israeli industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, it was lackluster in several categories. Even if you give them Puma's grades for firepower (which would be too much, because Puma was analyed as the ordered configuration including the TSWA), it still would fall short of the Puma in overall outcome due to the higher price that the US' CBO expected to need to pay and its lower mobility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Puma was both a contender for the GCV (a modified variant, but the Army didn't believe it was worth funding over the paper designs from BAE and GD) and chosen as best option (in an unmodified form) by the CBO. The CBO suggested that the US Army should scrapp the nine men requirement (they also did that, but at a later point) and instead buy more Pumas. That was considered to be the most cost-effective solution by the CBO.

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...