Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Serge said:

 

Leopard 2 upgraded with an Altaÿ turret ?

 

16 hours ago, Stimpy75 said:

nope, Altay turret, with LEO II 120/44 gun, my 2 cents

could be also LEO II turret....we will know later, not quite sure


Making them look similar/ the same would help with identification and recognition (hopefully less friendly fire), and might help with easing logistics or training between the vehicles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

i am really exhausted my feet are killin me first i will try google pics if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!

drinkin my turkish coffee and make me fresh and up i go to IDEF after uploading all the pics(may take a while) will share them here  

Maybe it is a matter of being prototype - but turrets on both vehicles that were shown are a bit different. Not only armament (gun itself, it`s craddle, mask) but look also at lower edge of turret. Looks like different masking of "core" turret. 
We need more better pictures, not just stills from video. Leo 2 turret would need some rework to not only look like Altays, but to be functional (f.e. reposition of sights, slight in case of gunner's, bigger in case of commander's). Sit and wait.

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

Maybe it is a matter of being prototype - but turrets on both vehicles that were shown are a bit different. Not only armament (gun itself, it`s craddle, mask) but look also at lower edge of turret. Looks like different masking of "core" turret. 
We need more better pictures, not just stills from video. Leo 2 turret would need some rework to not only look like Altays, but to be functional (f.e. reposition of sights, slight in case of gunner's, bigger in case of commander's). Sit and wait.


I don’t think the point is to “turn the leopard into the Altay”, but instead to use the same equipment and similar armor on both, to bring both to a common standard. 
 

The closest vehicle I can think of that’s comparable would be the French Unic P107s that were modified by the Nazi’s to be like their own Sd.Kfz 251s. 

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

 


Making them look similar/ the same would help with identification and recognition (hopefully less friendly fire), and might help with easing logistics or training between the vehicles. 

   I think reason is that Turkish industry have problems producing needed engine for Altay, so it looks like this hybrid is a way to quasi-solve this problem. Use older Leo hulls they actually have to carry new turret with all new equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mr.T said:

Both Koreans and Turks have issues with the engine for the new tank , and it doesnt seem like Ukrainan engine is going to solve turk engine problems,

 

Koreans have long solved their engine issues, and for them the only issue is that the Transmission has a MTBF that's shorter than required.

 

The Italian engine should be fine enough for Altay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 3:20 AM, TokyoMorose said:

The Italian engine should be fine enough for Altay.

You mean the one on the Ariete? Or the newer meant to replace it as part of the MLU program?

If you mean the first, then it most likely will have problems in the Altay since the tank is heavier than the Ariete and the engine is less powerful than the MTU. If you mean the second, with 1500 hp, it is still in development phase and by the time its clear for export, the Turks may have made enough progress with their own engine. Either case the most important aspect is not clear which is the political willingness of Italy to defy EU stance on Turkey´s militarism. And right now Italy is not the most stable country in the world politically, to say the least. The Prime Minister just resigned hours ago.

The safest path forward for the Altay program depends on how fast they need to get the tank into production with an interim powerpack. I see two options. The Chinese powerpack used on VT-4, which while underpowered as the Ariete´s, is readily available and surely cheaper and more modern and politically safer at the same time. On the other hand, the Korean Doosan/DST powerpack, which is supposed to be mature enough in the short term, would serve the Altay just as good or even better than MTU/Renk, On the down side, it may be very expensive. But if the development of an indigenous powerpack fails, the Korean solution is the best one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

You mean the one on the Ariete? Or the newer meant to replace it as part of the MLU program?

If you mean the first, then it most likely will have problems in the Altay since the tank is heavier than the Ariete and the engine is less powerful than the MTU. If you mean the second, with 1500 hp, it is still in development phase and by the time its clear for export, the Turks may have made enough progress with their own engine. Either case the most important aspect is not clear which is the political willingness of Italy to defy EU stance on Turkey´s militarism. And right now Italy is not the most stable country in the world politically, to say the least. The Prime Minister just resigned hours ago.

The safest path forward for the Altay program depends on how fast they need to get the tank into production with an interim powerpack. I see two options. The Chinese powerpack used on VT-4, which while underpowered as the Ariete´s, is readily available and surely cheaper and more modern and politically safer at the same time. On the other hand, the Korean Doosan/DST powerpack, which is supposed to be mature enough in the short term, would serve the Altay just as good or even better than MTU/Renk, On the down side, it may be very expensive. But if the development of an indigenous powerpack fails, the Korean solution is the best one. 

 

It's the 1600hp variant from Ariete AMV they are getting ahold of. That should work just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of AFV development coming out of Turkey. Apart from the vehicles themselves, they are also focusing on powerpacks with various power outputs. 380hp, 600hp diesel engines are fielded or ready to be used. 360hp, 450hp, 530hp, 630hp and 1000hp engines all from different companies (BMC and Tumosan) are currently being tested with the 1500hp engine going to be ignited for the first time in coming April/May.

 

If they succeed in achieving all of this, the tank engine market will get another competitor with less stringent user requirements which will make the few companies in this sector at the very least nervous, and at the most force them out of business. *cough... cough.... MTU cough..cough..

 

20210206_015154-jpg.13542

1612707871844-png.13697

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Any available time frame of when the development of that engine is planned to be finished? 

Not that I know of. But looking at the development time that is contracted for the 900-1000hp (UTKU) engine until ready for serial production the 1500hp could have a comparable development time (68 months) of which 36 months still remain.

 

Quote

Under the ALTAY MBT National Power Pack Development (BATU) Project, on June 14, 2018 the SSB awarded a contract to BMC Power for the development of indigenous power pack with 1,500hp diesel engine to be coupled with a hydro-mechanical transmission for the ALTAY MBT.

 

Quote

Located at Teknopark Istanbul, BMC Power was also selected under the New Generation Armoured Combat Vehicle (NGACV) Power Pack Development Program by the DIEC on October 28, 2016 and a contract was signed between the company and the SSB on October 13, 2017. Under the program BMC Power will design, develop, test, qualify and deliver a power pack which will consist of a 675kW (905hp), V8 type 18-litter diesel engine coupled with an automatic transmission under a 68-month schedule. The contract become effective on January 4, 2018 and ‘To’ started.

https://www.defenceturkey.com/en/content/bmc-received-contract-for-series-production-of-altay-mbt-and-its-power-pack-3130

 

 

But in a very recent interview, the director of the company tasked to develop these engines (BMC Power) stated that in a wartime scenario they could skip the whole testing and integration phase and put the powerpack immediately to work in the Altay.

 

It is in Turkish so you'll have to excuse me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vAMg1lvm_E

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

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 SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/53194/israel-donates-cobra-helos-to-jordan-to-combat-the-islamic-state
       
      Cobra's on the hunt again.
       
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/president-erdogans-growing-grip-faces-electoral-test-in-turkey/article24833813/
       
       
      Someone who was once regarded as a moderate reformer getting an ego and arresting 16 year olds as political prisoners.
      Power corrupts.
       

×
×
  • Create New...