Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS.

Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

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    

4 hours ago, MRose said:

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program.

 

Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas.

The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas.

 

Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. 

 

If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies.

 

Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava.

 

The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.

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

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program.

 

Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas.

The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas.

 

Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. 

 

If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies.

 

Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava.

 

The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

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

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared.

 

Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
32 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared.

 

Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.

 

There are higher budget priorities then a heavy MBT, a FCS solution might make a comeback which would be advantageous for the Carmel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 5:42 PM, SPARTAN ARMED said:

What happen to the hybrid mrap ! and i see pics that tzahal use sufa jeeps inside cities palestinian cities it will be more safe with a golan mrap.

 

The Sufa is used in non-threatening areas, but you wont see it driving a lot in hostile cities.

You may occasionally see it driving around Gaza with crowd dispersal means though.

 

In the MRAP role, the IDF so far has the Ze'ev (Wolf), seen in the 4th picture.

 

Currently the IDF is looking for an MRAP in the 8 ton category as a 3rd line supplement to the Namer and Eitan.

Search for such an MRAP began somewhere around 2014, but progress is slow because the main focus right now is on the Eitan, turreted Namer, and the new howitzer, all costly projects that are developed simultaneously, but with no budget hikes to compensate for it properly.

So it's possible we won't see any meaningful progress on MRAPs until the end of 2020.

 

The MRAP you see in the 1st photo, taken from a recent video from the maintenance facilities of the IDF, is not an indicator of meaningful progress or an intent to build it en mass. Even as far back as 2014 the IDF was testing a Wildcat MRAP by IMI in MEDEVAC configuration, with no decision on purchase so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. I was looking at a couple different vehicles while writing this. The Ze'ev is definitely not an MRAP, and its protective qualities are limited to small arms fire only. 

It is very useful for the West Bank and patrols here and there, but overall it's not something the IDF wants to equip its maneuvering forces with. It goes to regional units.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather bizarre image I found in another forum.

A vision block above a hatch?

Not really sure how it helps, as it cuts into the armor now, leaving a vulnerable spot above the TC's head, and Mark 4 tanks are supposed to be getting the IronVision anyway.

Except this one specifically does not cut into the armor and seems to be just placed above the hatch without any visible attachment points. So who knows.

11.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Serge said:

It’s a LIC kit. 

Mk3 can have the same dome commander hatch. 

It's hardly comparable to the Mk3. The Mk 3's hatch is thin like in every other tank, and manually moved. So it's easy to install a new hatch there. 

The Merkava 4, however, has a very thick turret roof armor, and the hatch is of the same thickness as the armor, thus requires a special mechanism to lift it. To install such a hatch, you'd have to replace the whole thing, and create quite a serious vulnerable point in the armor. 

 

It should, however, be noted that this is meant for instructional purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serge said:

The Mk3 LIC commander hatch is vulnerable too.

it’s so complex to change the hatch, it requires a crane. 

But maybe, it’s something else. Do you have any other idea ?

With the Mark 3 it's a compromise in protection that is built in and thus accepted.

 

I think we're only going to see these in the instructional unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security-q1_2019/Article-452dae857443961004.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=1434139730ΣÏÏαÏιÏÏÎ¹ÎºÏ ÏÏημα ÏÏα αιγÏÏÏιακά ÏÏνοÏα (ÎÏÏείο)As usual idf use only jeeps on border with egypt and they destroy one even  egyptians use real MRAPs but they destroy also by IED so in the future there going to use better protection the egyptians are create even tunnels under suez.

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

As usual idf use only jeeps on border with egypt and they destroy one even  egyptians use real MRAPs but they destroy also by IED so in the future there going to use better protection the egyptians are create even tunnels under suez.

 

Do I really need to explain again that the IDF IS getting MRAPs?

 

The Egyptian border is not dangerous enough to deploy current heavily protected vehicles.

This incident is very much an abnormality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For patrol mission in  medium and high-risk area, the Oshkosh M-ATV (already armored by Plasan) coupled with IMI Iron Fist LC would be a perfect fitted for the IDF. The M-ATV would advantageously replaced the up-armored HMMWV in IDF service which are not deemed safe enough to patrol the Lebanese border anymore or any dangerous place for that matter and force the IDF to use NAMER instead.

 

There is already a clear expectation that the IDF would procure the JLTV (Oshkosh L-ATV) and since the M-ATV is an up-armored variant, it would be a natural process. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste ressources on R&D while it is better need elsewhere. And it would still leave a space for a custom IDF-tailored MRAP APC.

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...