Israeli Afvs

[Marsh]

40 minutes ago, Rick said:

Any reason why Israel did not buy the Leopard 1?

It was far from what they wanted. The Israelis emphasised protection over mobility. They liked Chieftain. When they thought of mobility they considered the ability of a well armoured vehicle to move through a zone beaten with fire, as more important than speed.

In any case I doubt the German government would have sold the Leopard 1, even if asked.

[TrustMe]

Didn't the Israeli's get second hand M48 Pattons fronm Germany?

[Marsh]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Didn't the Israeli's get second hand M48 Pattons fronm Germany?

Yes and no. It is complex, but  it was part of a US sponsored arms deal. Without US pressure, the tanks would never have been provided directly by Germany. 

[R011]

M60 was cheaper being more or less free.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Oshkosh to produce "hundreds" of Eitan APC hulls for ~$100 million.

This statement is odd, as the Eitan's serial production has reportedly begun in February 2020.

It is unknown what type of delays the project faces, but it is certain it faces some at least.

The report on serial production in February also stated the Nahal brigade would receive them by the end of 2021. Only in June of 2022 it was reported they are soon to be delivered.

This report speaks of 330 units to be delivered to the Nahal brigade. Not sure how this number overlaps with the given contract.

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/node/56746

And this report estimates a contract of ~500 vehicles, and an IDF need for hundreds more.

https://defense-update.com/20221228_eitan-4.html

An industry insider says the IDF has no plans to produce a turreted variant at the moment. He estimates the Merkava 4 Barak and Eitan will enter production as-is, followed up by a Namer revamp period (of the early variants), and only then will Eitan get some focus. Says doctrine for a turreted variant still not ready.

[QOHC32]

Why not get the job done in Israel ?  I thought there were infrastructures for local producement.

[bojan]

Can use aid money that way.

[Mike1158]

Keeping some aid money into US construction reduces the obvious drain of money into another economy which will keep senators and congress happy.  Sorry if I am STFO.

[Mighty_Zuk]

10 hours ago, QOHC32 said:

Why not get the job done in Israel ?  I thought there were infrastructures for local producement.

1. Aid money can only be used on items manufactured in the US.

2. Production is currently only done in Israel. Idea is to produce in both places to increase the total volume and thus accelerate procurement and make Eitan more available for export.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Elbit and Rheinmetall demonstrate an 80km shot from a SIGMA SPH.

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/node/57504

[alanch90]

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Elbit and Rheinmetall demonstrate an 80km shot from a SIGMA SPH.

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/node/57504

What kind of round did they use? Seems that the way forward to get to 100km and beyond (and there are those kind of projects in NATO and Russia) is with air breathing rounds.

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

What kind of round did they use? Seems that the way forward to get to 100km and beyond (and there are those kind of projects in NATO and Russia) is with air breathing rounds.

Your guess is as good as mine. Rocket propellant, guidance, more aerodynamic design, these are all realistic possibilities.

One thing to note is that Rheinmetall has been playing around with an L60 gun. I'm not sure if it was installed for the test, but if it wasn't, then surely whatever round was used, will likely score close to 100km, if not exceed that, with a new barrel.

[alanch90]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Your guess is as good as mine. Rocket propellant, guidance, more aerodynamic design, these are all realistic possibilities.

One thing to note is that Rheinmetall has been playing around with an L60 gun. I'm not sure if it was installed for the test, but if it wasn't, then surely whatever round was used, will likely score close to 100km, if not exceed that, with a new barrel.

Indeed, the Germans are pitching an enlarged gun barrel and chamber to get to 100km+. 

[Colin]

With a guided round, barrel whip, droop, etc becomes a much less important factor. Problem is with the rocket boots and guidance kit, what happens to the terminal effect of the round? If going for this range, it might really make sense to go to a bigger calibre?

[R011]

At some point, you just have a guided missile that's needs expensive woerk to be fired from a gun instead of just from a simpler tube or rail launcher.

[Colin]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

At some point, you just have a guided missile that's needs expensive woerk to be fired from a gun instead of just from a simpler tube or rail launcher.

I can see 155 out to 30, 175 out to maybe 50-60 and missiles after that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Colin said:

With a guided round, barrel whip, droop, etc becomes a much less important factor. Problem is with the rocket boots and guidance kit, what happens to the terminal effect of the round? If going for this range, it might really make sense to go to a bigger calibre?

The idea is to make precision strikes available via more platforms, diversify the capabilities of existing platforms, create a cheap alternative to missiles, and increase the potential for high volume precision strikes. Perhaps also create a capability of sustained precise strikes rather than in waves.

To clarify:

1. Counter battery turns futile with the abundance of artillery assets.

2. In case of attrition, divisional and brigade fires can exchange assets.

3. Rockets are inherently more expensive as they require a large rocket propulsion section. 

4. Rockets that can reach such ranges tend to be large, limiting the ammo capacity and increasing logistical signature. They also have large warheads because why not, but not always is a larger warhead preferable.

5. Strikes that come in waves are predictable and allow an enemy some breathing time. Persistent strikes, on the other hand, are highly demoralizing as well as not having the above mentioned disadvantages.

[seahawk]

And if you have 80km max. range. You can rapid fire 3-4 rounds at 50km that would arrive at the same time.

[Colin]

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The idea is to make precision strikes available via more platforms, diversify the capabilities of existing platforms, create a cheap alternative to missiles, and increase the potential for high volume precision strikes. Perhaps also create a capability of sustained precise strikes rather than in waves.

To clarify:

1. Counter battery turns futile with the abundance of artillery assets.

2. In case of attrition, divisional and brigade fires can exchange assets.

3. Rockets are inherently more expensive as they require a large rocket propulsion section. 

4. Rockets that can reach such ranges tend to be large, limiting the ammo capacity and increasing logistical signature. They also have large warheads because why not, but not always is a larger warhead preferable.

5. Strikes that come in waves are predictable and allow an enemy some breathing time. Persistent strikes, on the other hand, are highly demoralizing as well as not having the above mentioned disadvantages.

You still be be able to equip all the 155 with guided as required, my argument is that to get that extended range and guidance out of a 155. something has to give. Looking at Wiki I think the numbers are incorrect, the length of the RAP projectile increases slightly, the rockets adds 13Kg to the shell, but they claim the explosive filler amount is the same as the standard shell and both weigh roughly the same. So unless the steel body of the shell is significantly thinner, I don't see how that happens?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_projectile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M549

Edited March 10, 2023 by Colin

[DB]

The wikipedia page for the M549 is misleading in that the sectioned diagram isn't of the M549, it's the XM1113. The latter appears to have a larger rocket motor section.

This diagram is more consistent with the wikipedia description of the rocket motor section.

http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/includes/uxopages/Mulvaney_Details.cfm?Ord_Id=P013

Compare with the M107 section here:

http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/includes/uxopages/mulvaney_details.cfm?ord_id=p008

If these drawings are accurate, and the weights quoted for the o/a round are also accurate, then the wall thickness, particularly at the base, suggest that the tradeoff is steel mass for greater filler, which is as one might expect.

[Colin]

What are the tradeoff of a thinner casing I wonder? The partitioning between the motor and the explosive likely regains some of the structural strength, I suspect that heat transfer from the motor to the explosive was always a concern and had to be accommodated as well? 

[lucklucky]

German Navy have the Leonardo 127mm naval gun with Vulcano rounds reported able to get to 80km. They tested them and was approved for service.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/11/127mm-vulcano-ammunition-passes-acceptance-tests-in-germany/

 

[DB]

There might be less trade-off than you might first think - modern methods might actually improve casing fragmentation patterns over historic designs and if the diagrams are accurate (enough) they seem to show that the main reduction in wall thickness is around the aft end. Traditionally, I believe this has not tended to produce the optimum fragmentation, producing a small number of large parts which is not ideal as I understand it (albeit unlucky for the IFV that might be hit by a 1kg chunk, as opposed to 50 x 25g chunks, or whatever).

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Colin said:

What are the tradeoff of a thinner casing I wonder? The partitioning between the motor and the explosive likely regains some of the structural strength, I suspect that heat transfer from the motor to the explosive was always a concern and had to be accommodated as well? 

Weight provides aerodynamic stability.

[DB]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:09 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Weight provides aerodynamic stability.

The overall mass is more or less the same for the two projectiles, but one is about 70-80mm longer than the other. The thinner wall will likely affect the total angular momentum adversely, so that complicated thing about spin stabilisation versus length probably needed to be considered.