Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    U.S. Army News:

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Guest on Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:01 pm

    "United States has chosen the Israeli active protection system "Iron Fist Light Configuration " to protect light and medium armoured vehicle personnel carrier. The system is designed and manufactured by the Israel Military Industries (IMI). Iron Fist is a hard-kill active protection system (APS) designed by Israel Military Industries (IMI), with a modular design allowing adaptation to a range of platforms ranging from light utility vehicles to heavy armoured fighting vehicles.

    The U.S. Army’s decision was influenced by the system’s light weight and ability to fire interceptors without shock, as well as an attractive price-tag, Zafir said. He also praised its ability to defend against RPGs, rockets, and anti-tank missiles. The system has been successfully tested against a wide variety of threats including rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles and tank-fired HEAT ammunition and kinetic energy penetrators.

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 US_has_chosen_Israeli_Iron_Fist_active_protection_system_to_secure_armoured_personnel_carrier_640_001

    IRON FIST employs a sophisticated, multi-sensor early warning system, utilizing both infrared and radar sensors, providing the crew with enhanced situational awareness and early warning from potential threats. Upon a threat warning, the modular system employs the multi-layered defenses, comprising electro-optical jammers, Instantaneous smoke screens and, if necessary, an interceptor-based hard kill Active Protection System (APS).

    IRON FIST APS was also selected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as the Active Protection System designed to protect the Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle."


    Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/u.s._has_chosen_israeli_iron_fist_active_protection_system_to_secure_armoured_personnel_carrier_10906162.html
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:45 pm

    Lockheed Might Offer Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile Internationally

    The US Army has delayed its plans to move forward with a capability it was developing to launch a variety of missiles against rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) threats, so Lockheed Martin is turning to the international market to sell its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile designed to combat the worldwide threat.

    Lockheed’s MHTK missile can go up against both RAM threats and some unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), Bob Delgado, the company’s international business development director for air and missile defense, told Defense News on Thursday at Eurosatory, a land warfare conference.

    The RAM threat “has proliferated, it’s a very cost-effective threat,” he said. “Obviously the cost of mortars and rockets are extremely low, not something you’d want to engage with these large missiles.”

    Lockheed developed the MHTK weapon in order to take out RAM threats — the second-largest killer of soldiers in Iraq — at a fraction of the cost of larger missiles.

    The Army is developing the Integrated Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) program in three phases, first tackling the UAS threat, a major priority for the service. In the second increment, the Army plans to focus on countering RAM threats. “That is where our missile comes in,” Delgado said.

    The missile is 27 inches long, two inches in diameter and weighs 5 pounds “at launch,” he added. The semi-active missile has no warhead, using kinetic energy — or thrust — instead to take out a target. “It’s really a bullet hitting a bullet,” which is the bread and butter capability in Lockheed’s missile technology. One launcher can fit 36 of the missiles, Delgado said, and two launchers can fit onto a single truck.

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 636017498948709779-Missile-info
    nemrod
    nemrod

    Posts : 828
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty FGM-148 Javelin

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:18 am


    US's equivalent of AT-14 Spriggan aka "Kornet"



    Here against a T-72 -old video-

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21521
    Points : 22071
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:08 pm

    Javelin is nothing like Kornet... Kornet is a heavy long range high speed laser beam riding missile.

    Javelin is a short range low speed very very expensive missile with a thermal imager for self guidance, or manual SACLOS guidance.
    nemrod
    nemrod

    Posts : 828
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:Javelin is nothing like Kornet... Kornet is a heavy long range high speed laser beam riding missile.

    Javelin is a short range low speed very very expensive missile with a thermal imager for self guidance, or manual SACLOS guidance.

    Thx Garry.
    I do not know why in this test, the T-72 was completely burnt by the Javelin. Did this T-72 contain too much fuel ? Video aimed for propaganda ? The warthead of the Javelin was greater than normal ?
    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1325
    Points : 1337
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:26 pm

    Kornet is considered a class above the rest but Javelin is good enough to make the job as well. Excessively expensive though.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1806
    Points : 1801
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:11 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Javelin is nothing like Kornet... Kornet is a heavy long range high speed laser beam riding missile.

    Javelin is a short range low speed very very expensive missile with a thermal imager for self guidance, or manual SACLOS guidance.

    Thx Garry.
    I do not know why in this test, the T-72 was completely burnt by the Javelin. Did this T-72 contain too much fuel ? Video aimed for propaganda ? The warthead of the Javelin was greater than normal ?

    Many believe that that T-72 was filled up with explosives for PR.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1806
    Points : 1801
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:16 pm

    Hannibal Barca wrote:Kornet is considered a class above the rest but Javelin is good enough to make the job as well. Excessively expensive though.

    Like many American weapons they're more flash then substance, it's debatable how effective a top attack weapon like that is against an mushroom shaped turret, although it's effectiveness against the box shaped turret is practically guaranteed.
    nemrod
    nemrod

    Posts : 828
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:34 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Like many American weapons they're more flash then substance, ...
    thumbsup  If not all ...US weaponries.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    ...it's debatable how effective a top attack weapon like that is against an mushroom shaped turret, although it's effectiveness against the box shaped turret is practically guaranteed.
    Indeed, I do not debunk Javelin, and I consider among the best anti tank weapons, nevertheless, I think like you this video is aimed for propaganda’s goals, in order to convince others not to buy any T-72 or russian's hardware. However, the recent T-72, and T-90's success in the streets of syrian cities against western anti-tank missiles prove that russian tanks are at least equal, if not better their western counterparts.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21521
    Points : 22071
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:39 pm

    The problems with Javelin include low flight speed, enormous expense, plus the main problem is the guidance system.

    Because the missiles seeker is basically a one shot thing... when used properly the seeker is destroyed the first time it is used basically so it is not a super high resolution expensive model... it is a simple downgraded relatively cheap model... of course when I say cheap I mean the price of a brand new sports car cheap... not two dollar watch cheap.

    because it is made to be disposable the seeker is not amazing which means to be able to fire it in fire and forget mode you need a clear lock on the target before launch.

    An uncamouflaged tank sitting out in the open with the engine running is an easy target... a tank partially behind cover with camo all over it is a much less likely target for a proper lock.

    Also this is a short range ATGM... like Milan or Metis so 80-90 percent of the time troops use it against an enemy sniper position or a light bunker or room of a building... in which case the fire and forget capability is useless... but no cheaper.

    This means that 80-90 percent of the time something like Metis or Dragon, which Javelin replaced is far superior and a fraction of the cost.

    ARENA works by launching a munition into the air above the path of an incoming round and exploding sending a shower of fragments down at the incoming missile to detonate it several metres from the tank it is protecting. It directs its fragments down so it is not a danger to friendly forces for hundreds of metres in every direction... it would not take much to redesign the system to direct fragments up and down so a diving top attack missile could be engaged by the same munition...
    Javelin is slow and not a particularly difficult target.

    Camo systems like Nakidka would make the fire and forget capability of Javelin useless so it could only be used in SACLOS mode where the operator has to put the crosshairs on the target from launch to impact... in which case it is no better than Metis... just 100 times more expensive and therefore only available in much smaller numbers.

    The low cost of Metis means it can be bought in large numbers and used against soft and hard targets all over the battlefield... a much better system.

    And that video was claimed to include HE in the turret to "simulate" the T-72 being loaded with ammo. In other words a hollywood fireworks display...
    Hannibal Barca
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1325
    Points : 1337
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:54 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Like many American weapons they're more flash then substance, ...
    thumbsup  If not all ...US weaponries.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    ...it's debatable how effective a top attack weapon like that is against an mushroom shaped turret, although it's effectiveness against the box shaped turret is practically guaranteed.
    Indeed, I do not debunk Javelin, and I consider among the best anti tank weapons, nevertheless, I think like you this video is aimed for propaganda’s goals, in order to convince others not to buy any T-72 or russian's hardware. However, the recent T-72, and T-90's success in the streets of syrian cities against western anti-tank missiles prove that russian tanks are at least equal, if not better their western counterparts.


    Indeed, primary data show that Russian tanks performed really well in Syrian conflict unlike e.g. Merkava which was considered one of the very best but performed abysmally against much inferior weaponry.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13447
    Points : 13936
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:04 am

    Black Hawk Down: New Aircraft Set to Replace Veteran US Military Chopper
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1548
    Points : 1728
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty More Weapons for War: US Army Aims for New Light Tank

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:11 am

    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160806/1043988256/us-army-greenlights-light-tank.html

    More Weapons for War: US Army Aims for New Light Tank


    so i guess USA has now seen the benefits of having a light tank but the Russian's/Soviets have been doing it for years, even Belarus designed the 2T Stalker which was pretty good shame it never saw any orders.
    airstrike
    airstrike

    Posts : 133
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2016-07-13

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  airstrike on Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:52 pm

    US Army developing rocket-assisted artillery rounds for extended range

    http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/02/us-army-developing-rocket-assisted-artillery-round-for-extended-range/
    airstrike
    airstrike

    Posts : 133
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2016-07-13

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  airstrike on Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:01 pm

    U.S. Army Armored Multipurpose Vehicle program advancing

    http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/28/u-s-army-armored-multipurpose-vehicle-program-advancing/
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13447
    Points : 13936
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:57 pm

    US Army to Test New Turret on Stryker Combat Vehicle

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/20161007/1046078060/army-to-test-new-turret.html
    VladimirSahin
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 408
    Points : 424
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Florida

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  VladimirSahin on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:37 pm

    I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3981
    Points : 3998
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:48 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

    That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see for that one.
    VladimirSahin
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 408
    Points : 424
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Florida

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:51 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

    That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see  for that one.

    Wrong wording choice I used, I meant if they would decide so. If they do I think it would be worth it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21521
    Points : 22071
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:30 am

    At a time when the 30mm is being replaced as an IFV weapon in Russia by a 57mm gun I would think they would be looking at a least at a 35mm or 40mm gun... or a combination like the BMP-3 with a 100mm calibre and a light auto cannon to cover a range of targets...
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13447
    Points : 13936
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:40 am

    US Army’s New Long-Range Missile Battery Could Double as Anti-Ship Weapon

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610151046351143-us-army-long-range-anti-ship/
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13447
    Points : 13936
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:55 am

    The end of the history of the helicopter AH-64 Apache?

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2191449.html
    Zhukov-Patton
    Zhukov-Patton

    Posts : 13
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2015-03-30
    Location : USA

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty US tank defenses

    Post  Zhukov-Patton on Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:02 am

    Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1806
    Points : 1801
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:11 pm

    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

    Sounds dumb, i get the idea, have extra armor that can be moved to targeted areas of the tank to improved it's survival, problem is, will that same extra armor be usable later and if not you're still gonna need more armor when the adversary targets other parts of the tank, it would make more sense to just make sure that "extra" armor's added to the entire tank, in short this won't resolve any weight or size problem (unless some mad scientist made an actual working force field), IMO.

    What happened to that "Electromagnetic Reactive Armour" they were working on, to expensive? Suspect

    And their excuse for not simply using an APS sounds like crap, they just want something they can call their own, and then say they're better than everyone else, not sure whether this can be called a superiority complex.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Guest on Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:38 pm

    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

    "One interesting wrinkle is that the Army proposal explicitly prohibits any solution that is an active protection system. That means the Army wants to avoid anything like Israel's Trophy gear, which shoots down incoming rockets with a shotgun blast of projectiles. The Army suggests one reason for this stipulation when it calls for moveable armor that “shall not pose harm to dismounted personnel.” - Right, meanwhile using SABOT is totally fine, it can just cut your head off if you are in front or on the side of the tank. Even saw it landing behind the tank.

    Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.


    Sponsored content

    U.S. Army News: - Page 6 Empty Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:56 pm