Panssarivaunut
- Viestiketjun aloittaja ctg
- Aloitus PVM
-
- Tagit
- panssarivaunut
kimmo.j
Respected Leader
Kuvittelisin noiden olevan kohtuullisen arkoja epäsuoran tulen sirpaleille. Puhumattakaan, kuinka helppoa ja halpaa on sitten kentällä korjata noita.
Ehkä siksi venäläiset pistivät peltiä päälle t14 vehkeisiin. Ei se että pelti suojaisi, mutta ei ole ulokkeita ainakaan.
kimmo.j
Respected Leader
Voi olla ajatuksena.
proileri
Kenraali
Luultavasti moduulin vaihto on pari pulttia ja piuhan kytkentä, mutta eri asia miten halpaa se sitten on. Paksumman teräskuoren lisäys sivusuojaksi nyt ei varmaan ole suuri ongelma, mutta ei se täysin haavoittuvuutta poista, varsinkin kun tutka on melko kookas lautanen.
Tuli mieleen että nuo tosiaan käyttävät aktiivista tutkaa ympäristön tarkkailuun. Kivasti loistaa elsospektrillä?
kimmo.j
Respected Leader
Vaikea sanoa mitä vaatii, heittimen vaihtaminen ei ehkä ole mikään iso juttu, mutta juuri sensorit saattavat olla sitä vaikeaa osaa. Ja kuinka monta vara-osaa löytyy?
Hyvä huomio, tuo tutkan aktiivisuus, kauan kestää, että joku kehittää esim. tutkaan hakeutuvan 155mm kranaatin.
Joskus kannattaa ajaa luukut kiinni....
Leaderwolf
Respected Leader
AT-AT, viimeinkin 
The Army’s future tank may not be a tank
WASHINGTON — The Army’s future tank may not be a tank, Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who is in charge of combat vehicle modernization, told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual show.
While the M1 Abrams tank still has life in it yet, the Army is starting to begin the thinking and planning process for a future tank, “which is really exciting because it might not be a tank,” Coffman said. “It is decisive lethality and what that decisive lethality is will be determined by academia, our science and technology community within the Army and industry.”
The Army will choose a path in 2023 on how it plans to replace the Abrams and some of the ideas cropping up in discussions have been “everything from a ray gun to a Star Wars-like four-legged creature that shoots lasers,” Coffman said, “but the reality is that everything is on the table.
“We have to get away from these paradigms that we created that decisive lethality must come from a tank,” Coffman said. “It may be a tank in the end and that would be great, but we need choices for our soldiers, so we can really move into a position of lethal advantage over the enemy.”
Coffman is spearheading that effort along with some more near-term plans to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle and bring online the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and a light tank called the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) system.
The one-star is in charge of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team housed under the Army Futures Command tasked to modernize the force.
The modernization team tasked with advancing the Army’s next-generation combat vehicles is focused, as its top priority, on replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.
While the Bradley has a need for relatively immediate replacement because of its power limitations that simply prevent it from being able to accomodate effective upgrades, the Abrams is going through an upgrade program now.
The Army began accepting the M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 — or M1A2 SEP V3 — from General Dynamics Land Systems a year ago.
The service expects to begin fielding the version in fiscal year 2020.
The main intent of the upgrade is to buy back size, weight, and power lost during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Army focused on protective measures for the tank. The upgrade also includes a modernized architecture.
The modernized architecture allows for the inclusion of an ethernet connection that enhances processing within the tank to accommodate an updated fire control system that will allow users to engage targets more quickly.
The Army is also installing an ammunition data link that will allow the tank itself to talk to the new smart rounds it is fielding in order to optimize the effect of those rounds.
The variant rolling off the production line essentially primes the pump for the integration of future technology and improved lethality because of the new architecture and restoration of power to the vehicle.
The next round of upgrades — the M1A2 SEP V4 — will fall in on the tail end of the M1A2 SEP V3 production that is focused on increasing lethality of the system. The Army just awarded GDLS a contract over a year ago to develop the M1A2 SEP V4.
The service will make a production decision in fiscal year 2023 and hopes to field to the first brigade in 2025.
The keystone technology is the incorporation of the third generation Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital...0/09/the-armys-future-tank-may-not-be-a-tank/
The Army’s future tank may not be a tank
WASHINGTON — The Army’s future tank may not be a tank, Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who is in charge of combat vehicle modernization, told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual show.
While the M1 Abrams tank still has life in it yet, the Army is starting to begin the thinking and planning process for a future tank, “which is really exciting because it might not be a tank,” Coffman said. “It is decisive lethality and what that decisive lethality is will be determined by academia, our science and technology community within the Army and industry.”
The Army will choose a path in 2023 on how it plans to replace the Abrams and some of the ideas cropping up in discussions have been “everything from a ray gun to a Star Wars-like four-legged creature that shoots lasers,” Coffman said, “but the reality is that everything is on the table.
“We have to get away from these paradigms that we created that decisive lethality must come from a tank,” Coffman said. “It may be a tank in the end and that would be great, but we need choices for our soldiers, so we can really move into a position of lethal advantage over the enemy.”
Coffman is spearheading that effort along with some more near-term plans to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle and bring online the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and a light tank called the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) system.
The one-star is in charge of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team housed under the Army Futures Command tasked to modernize the force.
The modernization team tasked with advancing the Army’s next-generation combat vehicles is focused, as its top priority, on replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.
While the Bradley has a need for relatively immediate replacement because of its power limitations that simply prevent it from being able to accomodate effective upgrades, the Abrams is going through an upgrade program now.
The Army began accepting the M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 — or M1A2 SEP V3 — from General Dynamics Land Systems a year ago.
The service expects to begin fielding the version in fiscal year 2020.
The main intent of the upgrade is to buy back size, weight, and power lost during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Army focused on protective measures for the tank. The upgrade also includes a modernized architecture.
The modernized architecture allows for the inclusion of an ethernet connection that enhances processing within the tank to accommodate an updated fire control system that will allow users to engage targets more quickly.
The Army is also installing an ammunition data link that will allow the tank itself to talk to the new smart rounds it is fielding in order to optimize the effect of those rounds.
The variant rolling off the production line essentially primes the pump for the integration of future technology and improved lethality because of the new architecture and restoration of power to the vehicle.
The next round of upgrades — the M1A2 SEP V4 — will fall in on the tail end of the M1A2 SEP V3 production that is focused on increasing lethality of the system. The Army just awarded GDLS a contract over a year ago to develop the M1A2 SEP V4.
The service will make a production decision in fiscal year 2023 and hopes to field to the first brigade in 2025.
The keystone technology is the incorporation of the third generation Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital...0/09/the-armys-future-tank-may-not-be-a-tank/
Tästä syystä ovatkin käyttökelpoisimmillaan "epäsymmetrisissä" konflikteissa. Omaa väkeä suojataan savimajajengin singoilta. Ja mikä ettei siinä vaiheessa kun panssarilautta ryskää halki pohjois-saksan tasankojen, kyllä sen huomaa silmälläkin ei tarvi etsiä signaalia.
J0h1F
Ylipäällikkö
USA:n Euroopan-joukoilla on kuitenkin muistaakseni israelilaisvalmisteisia volframiammuksia, koska jotakuinkin yksikään Euroopan maa ei salli DU-ammusten käyttöä.
DU on kuitenkin läpäisymateriaalina volframia parempi, ja lisäksi sen pyroforisuus aiheuttaa pahempaa tuhoa läpäisyn jälkeen.
Venäjälläkin on muuten DU-nuoliammuksia käytössä, ollut jo 1980-luvun puolivälistä lähtien.
Tämä on se juttu mitä ajan takaa. Mitenköhän kauan menee ennenkuin tulee vastaan seuraava materiaali joka lyö DUn laudalta? Toinen asia on se että jenkeillä on m1a2 malleja missä köyhytetyllä uraanilla on tehty panssarointeja.
kimmo.j
Respected Leader
DU on myös halpaa. Suurilla ydinvalloilla on sitä ongelmaksi asti.
Toisin sanoen valtio voisi hyötyä jos se varautuisi konfliktiin tekemällä edes osasta panssarilevyjä taikka nuoliammuksia. Ehkä pelkkä ammusten olemassa olo saisi aikaan vastustajassa ajatuksia siitä panssarilautan levittämisestä meidän tontille. Toisaalta ehkä myös ensimmäisen T80BMn muuttumisesta tulipatsaaksi yhdestä osumasta saisi aikaan pelkotiloja, ja mutinaa, "kukaan ei kertonut meille että heillä on tuollaisia..."
kimmo.j
Respected Leader
Periaatteessa kyllä.
Käytännössä DU-alikalin tekeminen ei ole ihan helppoa ja tekniikka on ainakin ylläolevan dokkarin perusteella salaisuus. Erityisen tappava DU-alikali on automaattilataajalla varustettuja itä-vaunuja vastaan(kartuusit karusellissa).
Tuo DU ammusten valmistusongelma tulee siitä, että aine on pyroforista, eli kitka/lämpö saa sen hapettumaan (palamaan), joten se rajoittaa valmistusmetodeja (oletettavasti työ on tehtävä hapettomassa ympäristössä).
Siitä on ole ihan varma, että onko tuo DU ammus niin mahdottomasti parempi kuin muut panssarinläpäisijät, meinaan että nuo itä-vaunut on tunnettuja räjähdysalttiudestaan muutenkin. Ja se ei välttämättä johdu tuosta karusellista ollenkaan, ryssät ilmeisesti saivat hyviä tuloksia sillä, että vaunusta jätetään kaikki muut ammukset pois paitsi karusellissa olevat. Tämä johtunee yksinkertaisesti siitä, että läpäisevällä osumalla on matalammat mahdollisuudet osua ammuksiin, kun ammuksia ei ole joka paikassa varastoituna.
intternetsoturi
Majuri
Muistelisin täällä aiemmin käydyistä keskusteluista, että lyhyemmällä putkella ja pienemmällä lähtönopeudella DU läpäisee paremmin mutta suuremmalla lähtönopeudella volframi on parempi.