Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Was already posted, such things probably better to link in that thread.

 

I honestly found the passive armor information offerings to be a lot more interesting. Especially, the part where they have a wheeled IFV (Eitan) going to level 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MRose said:

 

I honestly found the passive armor information offerings to be a lot more interesting. Especially, the part where they have a wheeled IFV (Eitan) going to level 6.

The Eitan is not rated at level 6. 

Rafael only publicly lists certain products, but in the end the solution it creates for the customer is tailor-made and will often deviate from the standard levels.

 

Back to the Eitan, it is not a NATO vehicle. Neither are the Merkava and Namer shown in the video. The reactive armor Rafael makes for these vehicles is actually hybrid, not reactive alone. Meaning there's a thick layer of passive armor before the ERA, or the reactive armor could be entirely NxRA. 

 

The Eitan uses 2 very thick walls of armor, and between them an ERA array.

It thus gives it substantially higher protection levels than STANAG 4569 level 6, and a very high level of protection against HEAT.

The front lacks the ERA layers but its passive armor is substantially thicker even over highly sloped surfaces, than competing vehicles that only strive to reach level 6.

That is because the reference threat for the IDF is one that will use elevation to its advantage, so there's less reliance on sloped armor designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
6 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

Hello VPZ, 

Purely from a modelling perspective, do you have an image showing the roof of the Ofek, please? It is the only area I don’t have an image of that I may scratch build this in 1/35. Thank you

6 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Purely from a modelling perspective, do you have an image showing the roof of the Ofek, please? It is the only area I don’t have an image of that I may scratch build this in 1/35. Thank you

 

 

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

screenshots from this video

IAI

Spoiler

EBIzNhlWkAAw9nA?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBIzY3hWwAIWttM?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBIzhYFXkAEpabO?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBIzjJDXoAAOxvF?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBIztVWW4AEnbiB?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBIz1laX4AAqPXM?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI0G2fXYAEGKB-?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBI0Su1WsAc-CRH?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI0b6RW4AA4kQ0?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI0gQVWkAAMdEG?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI0jXkXoAILUYh?format=jpg&name=large

 

RAFAEL

Spoiler

EBI0zCRXoAI7B6f?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI06LjXYAACwuP?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI08HeXsAEwOZD?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI1BcDWwAALXwD?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBI1GwXW4AEj1on?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI1KgvWkAEkVqJ?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI1NCkWkAgFHBt?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI1N5sXoAAcTtI?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBI1XGFWsAArS-v?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI1bxXWwAEcvPo?format=jpg&name=large

 

Elbit

Spoiler

EBI1ykCWsAQnTJp?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI11NsW4AAkNyw?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI13DhXsAIJjUH?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI14b5WwAMfs63?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI2mDuWkAAltV8?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI2XMhWsAEfbCb?format=jpg&name=small

 

 

EBI2pX9XsAAT7TR?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI2qmrW4AELMNe?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBI2yr6XsAAbNQ4?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI24cQW4AYWJCV?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI2-j2WwAYCM8b?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI3Bh_WkAA-W_I?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI3UBkW4AgvMo4?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBI3ZXPWwAEIfbO?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI3axpWwAAOWI9?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBI3dNFWkAE1ih6?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

...
https://www.idf.il/מאמרים/2019/רכב-הקרב-העתידי-של-צהל-נחשף/
this article (in Hebrew) is accompanied by another video on Carmel program demonstrators 

some screenshots
EBJBAIsXUAYT1w1?format=jpg&name=small

Spoiler

EBJBCZdXsAIA_DL?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBJBFZZWsAI-LS7?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBJBGtHX4AAGQn-?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

EBJBSmpXoAEL2Ud?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBJBX9JXkAAWeXp?format=jpg&name=large

 

EBJCPWLWsAAFcSK?format=jpg&name=large

 

upscaled:
TorTQAf.jpg

 

y595JuW.jpg 

 

1Ul5gMs.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://defense-update.com/20190804_carmel.html

"

Israel MOD Evaluates Future Concepts for Armored Warfare

By
 Tamir Eshel
 -
Aug 4, 2019
550
rafael_carmel_1021.jpg The Carmel variant presented by Rafael. Photo: IMOD
0

Israel’s Ministry of Defense Defense Research and Development Directorate (DR&DD) provided today a glimpse into the Carmel technology demonstration program, evaluating future combat vehicle technologies for the late 2020 and beyond.

DR&DD invited three industry groups to provide technology demonstrators for the program – Rafael, Elbit Systems and IAI. The demonstrators were all based on an M-113 used as a platform surrogate for the combat vehicle. The future platform will utilize a new chassis powered by a diesel generator powering a rechargeable battery bank to provide the electricity for propulsion and all systems.

 

During the first phase of the Carmel Program, a significant challenge was presented to the three major defense industries in Israel: to prove the feasibility of an AFV that is operated by only two combat soldiers, with closed hatches. The two persons employ different sensors onboard and off-board, including radars, thermal imaging sensors, video cameras, acoustic and lasers and drones, all inputs are fused and displayed to the crew for situational assessment and response.

elbit_carmel_1021.jpg The Carmel variant presented by Elbit Systems. Photo: IMOD

Subscribe to read the full coverage.

iai_carmel_1021.jpg The Carmel variant presented by IAI. Photo: IMOD

Each group took a different approach to meet the objectives – a light (35 ton) combat vehicle armed with medium caliber auto-cannon and missiles, and operated by a crew of two, with an additional position for a third person operating specialist systems. Designed for manned operation, Carmel is equipped with sensors, artificial intelligence, and advanced automation and system autonomy thus reducing operator workload. This approach enables human operators to take decisions and actions in a timely and optimal manner.The Carmel Program also includes the development of other capabilities not presented in the demo day, such as the platform with hybrid-electric propulsion and energy storage with high capacity to support the electronic systems on board, signature reduction, including active camouflage, multi-task radar providing both self defense (active protection) from anti-tank threats as well as detection and tracking of drones, vehicles and humans, blue force tracking and various types of weapon systems, including direct and indirect fires, self-protection and high-energy lasers. Another aspect to be pursued in a later stage is teamwork – the synergy between several Carmel vehicles, sharing information and tasks using broadband connectivity. ‘Manned-Unmanned Teaming’, will evaluate the advantages of augmenting the small crew with the capabilities of associated robotic team members.

The lessons learned from the recent evaluation will be assessed and presented to the DR&DD for further action. DR&DD is expected to recommend a technology mix for further development and integration in a future platform or select a single provider or a team to act as a prime contractor. Among the technologies already selected for integration in future platforms is the Iron Vision helmet display from Elbit Systems, that will be integrated in the next phase of the Merkava Main Battle Tank – the Merkava Mk4 Barak. Other systems could be included in the future in the Eitan APC and Namer heavy armored infantry combat 

"

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...