Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 145 to 149 of 149

Thread: M1 Abrams

  1. #145
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lima _ Perú
    Posts
    5,320
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Unos alcances interesantes sobre el Trophy:
    https://below-the-turret-ring.blogsp...-overview.html

    A major issue with using MEFP warheads against missiles is the fragmentation and the large lethal zone. The EFPs and fragments from the warhead casing/EFP will be shot into the direction of the incoming threat, spreading over a larger area (a desired effect, because hitting the threat wouldn't be possible otherwise) and forming a cone of fragments. This however endangers infantry aswell as soft-skinned and lightly armored vehicles located in the flight path of the fragments and EFPs. The US Army rejected Trophy because of this high danger for dismounted soldiers. While Rafael and the IDF claim that the propability of injuring a dismount is less than 1%, the IDF did indirectly admit the issue by changing the doctrine of how infantry operates alongside Trophy-equipped tanks and vehicles, making sure the infantry avoids the danger zone created by Trophy.

    A further problem of this system is the low amount of ready-to-fire countermeasures (one per launcher) and the relatively long reload time; in the marketing video from Rafael at least, the automatic reloading of the launcher took more than 1.5 seconds (closer to 1.75 seconds). This means that the minimum defeat distance against multiple threats being shot at the same time is not given. An average RPG-7 round has a top speed of 294 metres per second - this means that after engaging a threat, Trophy is incapable of protecting against any RPG fired at the same side from more than 450 metres distance! Against faster flying RPGs, ATGMs and tank ammunition (a 120 mm HEAT round has a muzzle velocity of 1,140 mps!), the deadzone after reloading is considerable larger.

    It's main advantage of Trophy is probably the lower complexity and price. While other launcher-based systems use projectiles that detonate mid-air, Trophy simply tracks the threat, turns the MEFP countermeasure into the direction and fires it. It doesn't require bulky rounds with fin-stabilization, that have an expensive fuze system that is set on the launcher before firing by the APS' computer system with pre-calculated data.

    Trophy seems to be offering less performance in order to reach a lower price point, making the system more attractive for militaries that can accept it's shortcomings or are on a budget.
    "La más grande emoción del pueblo incaico y la visión más genuina del Cuzco Imperial es el estruendo guerrero de los días de preparación militar y la estrepitosa algazara de la entrada de los Incas victoriosos al Cuzco."

  2. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lima, Perú
    Posts
    2,913
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Trophy barato e inefectivo

    THE COMBAT PERFORMANCE OF HAMAS IN THE GAZA WAR OF 2014

    Anti-Tank Actions

    A second key category of Hamas ground action consisted of attacks on Israeli armored vehicles, including tanks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and armored engineering vehicles. Hamas had specialized anti-tank units equipped with a variety of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and RPGs. ATGMs reportedly included the Malyutka, Konkurs, Fagot, and Kornet types. RPGs included the RPG-7 and the modern and capable RPG-29. Hamas attempted to engage IDF armor with ATGMs at long range, and with anti-tank teams in close combat. Hamas also used IEDs and mines against IDF armor, and attempted to draw the IDF into prepared “ambushes” where all anti-tank means could be brought to bear.

    Hamas was less effective with these tactics. Not a single IDF tank was confirmed destroyed, nor were any Namer heavy APCs lost in combat. Other armored vehicles appeared more vulnerable, including the aging M113 APC, in which seven Israeli troops were killed in an RPG blast. Armored corps personnel were killed and wounded by sniping and mortar fire, but by and large Hamas anti-tank weapons and tactics were not of great effect. This was due to the Trophy anti-ATGM system employed on Merkava Mk 4 tanks, the protection provided by Merkava tanks and Namer APCs, and probably Israeli tactics that employed heavy firepower against ATGM threats.
    FUENTE



    IDF wants more Namer APCs and Trophy protection systems

    Senior army officials hope that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will acquire better-protected armoured vehicles and more active protection systems (APS) such as Rafael's Trophy.

    Their comments came after seven members of the elite Golani Brigade were killed by an rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attack on their M113 armoured personnel carrier (APC) during Operation 'Protective Edge' against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

    Senior officers say they want far more Namer APCs, which have superior armour, to replace the thousands of M113s they currently have. They also say they want to equip more vehicles with the Trophy APS, which they credit with defending Merkava Mk 4 tanks against more than a dozen anti-tank missile strikes carried out by militants during Operation 'Protective Edge'.

    "We want many more Namer APCs for the infantry," a senior army source said. "If we had more Namers and more defences, we would have fewer casualties from missile strikes such as the one that occurred on the M113.

    (...)

    Hundreds of attacks on modern armoured vehicles failed to cause significant damage during 'Protective Edge', the source said, although he declined to give precise numbers. He said that the Trophy system had "pleasantly surprised us with its extreme precision, and unique operational capability. It answered the threat.
    FUENTE: 'IDF wants more Namer APCs and Trophy protection systems', Jane's Defence Weekly, 21/08/2011

    Doble

    AUSA 2017: US Army buys Trophy active protection system for Abrams tank brigade

    The US Army is buying the Trophy-HV active protection system (APS) for its M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams main battle tanks as an interim measure to address urgent threats against US tanks in Europe.

    About a year ago the army was directed to install and characterise existing APS, and it chose to work with Trophy for Abrams, Iron Fist Light for Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and Iron Curtain for Stryker wheel vehicles.

    “Trophy exceeded our expectations” during trials, Colonel Glenn Dean, programme manager for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team and lead for the APS effort, told reporters on 9 October at the annual Association of the US Army’s (AUSA's) annual conference.

    There is still additional testing to be done, but the army is going into production with Trophy for Abrams and planning to start with a brigade for deployment to Europe by 2020 or sooner, Col Dean said.
    FUENTE: 'AUSA 2017: US Army buys Trophy active protection system for Abrams tank brigade', Jane's Defence Weekly, 09/10/2017

    Triple

    Cambiando un poco el tema, siguiendo un poco las novedades de la feria AUSA 2017, se anunció que el US Army recibió su primer modelo de producción M1A2 Abrams SEP v3 (correspondiente a las modificaciones bajo la Engineering Change Proposal - ECP - 1A) hace apenas unos días (4 de octubre). Se espera que la producción en serie inicie a partir de 2018. El US Army tiene previsto llevar 500 vehículos a este nuevo estándar, los cuales comenzarán a llegar a unidades operacionales a partir de FY2020.

    SEP (System Enhancement Package) v3 incorpora una serie de mejoras tales como un nuevo paquete de protección (nuevos módulos de blindaje bajo la torre y el casco) e interferidores contra IEDs de detonación remota, así como mejoras a las herramientas de diagnóstico a bordo y migración de unidades sustituibles en línea (LRUs) a módulos (LRMs), más fáciles de reemplazar debido al menor número de cables, cajas y tarjetas involucradas, lo que simplificará considerablemente el mantenimiento. Asimismo, expande la arquitectura digital del tanque con un bus de datos Ethernet de 1Gb e incorpora un nuevo sistema de gestión de energía y un generador interno (APU) para operar los sistemas de a bordo sin necesidad de tener prendido el motor principal todo el tiempo. Se trata de un tanque mejor protegido, más conectado y digitalizado, más fácil de mantener y más eficiente en el consumo de combustible que su predecesor, el SEP v2.

    A partir de 2022, se espera la decisión para pasar al siguiente nivel de mejoras (SEP v4 bajo ECP1B), que expande lo anterior para concentrarse en incrementar el potencial ofensivo del tanque introduciendo actualizaciones al sistema de mira tanto del jefe (CITV) como del artillero (GPS) con nuevas cámaras termales de última generación. Asimismo, se prevé la introducción de un nuevo proyectil polivalente de 120mm, denominado interinamente XM1147 AMP (Advanced Multi Purpose), destinado a sustituir los cuatro tipos de munición actualmente en servicio - M830 HEAT (antitanque de alto explosivo) & M830A1 MPAT (antitanque multipropósito); M1028 canister (empleada contra fuerzas vivas) y M908 (utilizada para despejar obstáculos) - mediante la utilización de un enlace de datos y espoleta programable. La misma pasará a constituir dotación estándar en los carros estadounidenses junto con la más moderna APFSDS de reciente introducción (M829A4).

    Saludos
    Aforismo forístico: "si está en Internet, debe ser cierto".

  3. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Al sur del Pacífico.
    Posts
    1,254
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Versión M1A2 SEPv3 del tanque de EEUU
    La última versión del carro Abrams sale de fábrica


    Carro de combate M1A2 SEPv3. Foto: Ejército de Estados Unidos

    12/10/2017 | Washington

    La fábrica de Tanques del Ejército de Lima, en el estado norteamericano de Ohio, ha presentado el primer carro de combate
    M1A2 SEPv3. En palabras del responsable de productos del Ejército para el Abrams, el teniente coronel Justin Shell, “esta versión representa la configuración más actualizada del tanque Abrams”. La nueva arma incluye “mejoras en la protección de la fuerza y en la supervivencia del sistema, y un incremento de su letalidad respecto a las variantes previas M1A1 y M1A2”.

    El nuevo Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 servirá de base para futuras mejoras del sistema y podrá albergar cualquier tecnología madura que el Ejército considere operacionalmente relevante. “Es el primero de una serie de vehículos nuevos o significativamente mejorados que estaremos entregando a los ABCT (equipos de combate de brigada blindada) del Ejército”, ha explicado el general de división David Bassett, director ejecutivo del programa de Sistemas de Combate Terrestres.

    De acuerdo con Basset, “incluso en un entorno fiscal que ha dificultado enormemente nuestra capacidad de avanzar hacia vehículos completamente nuevos, el Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 evidencia que todavía podemos ofrecer mejoras significativas y operacionalmente relevantes”.
    La renovada plataforma cuenta, entre otras mejoras, con un sistema combinado de radio táctica que se integra con los sistemas de radios tácticas de mano Manpack que se emplearán en los futuros ABCT; con módulos de tecnología reemplazables; con un sistema electrónico contra artefactos explosivos improvisados; con munición dotada de enlace de datos de alta tecnología; con una unidad de potencia auxiliar que permite operar sistemas a bordo con una baja probabilidad de ser detectados durante operaciones silenciosas, y con una mejora del blindaje.

    Basset añade que estos vehículos “no se limitan a proteger a nuestros aliados o a disuadir o coaccionar a posibles adversarios”, sino que con ellos “se trata de obligar a nuestros enemigos a ganar la batalla en un entorno de ámbitos múltiples (multi-domain)”.
    http://www.infodefensa.com/mundo/201...s-fabrica.html


    Tienen buena fábrica de tanques en Ohio.


    Saludos.

  4. #148
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Al sur del Pacífico.
    Posts
    1,254
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Europe-bound: US Army to urgently field Abrams tanks with Trophy APS


    An Abrams tank equipped with the Trophy Active Protection System. (Army photo)


    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has decided to equip a brigade’s worth of Abrams tanks with the Trophy Active Protection System and urgently field them to the European theater, Col. Glenn Dean, the program manager for Stryker, who also manages the service’s effort to install APS on combat vehicles, told Defense News.

    The service made a decision to buy Trophy for Abrams on Sept. 29, Dean said, and now the Army is moving out to deploy the systems to Europe by 2020. The decision marks a major step in achieving a capability that has been continuously out of the service’s reach for many years.

    A little over a year ago, the Army determined it needed to field an interim APS solution for the Abrams, Stryker combat vehicle and Bradley fighting vehicle and decided to rapidly assess off-the-shelf APS systems to fulfill an urgent operational need.

    “Over the last 20 years, we’ve never fielded an APS system even though we invested a lot of money in a range of development projects trying to get to one,” Dean said. “We could never get to the desired level.”

    So to rapidly find solutions for three very different combat vehicles, the Army tapped into a consortium of companies participating in a science and technology effort to develop the Modular Active Protection System, the Army’s future APS solution, for readily available systems.

    [2017 Holds Key Army Decisions For Vehicle Active-Protection Kit]

    Ultimately, the Army selected Israeli company Rafael’s Trophy system -- that is deployed in the Israeli army -- for Abrams; Iron Fist from IMI, another Israeli company, for the Bradley; and Herdon, Virginia-based Artis’ Iron Curtain for Stryker.


    The Army got started with Trophy’s installation onto Abrams earlier because there was funding available within the program in 2016 to move forward. The other two vehicles didn’t receive funding until fiscal year 2017, Dean said, so Abrams is moving out ahead of Stryker and Bradley.

    “Stryker is the next one in the chute,” Dean said. Artis has completed its work designing, installing and tuning the system to fit on the vehicle and the system has now entered government characterization efforts. Testing will continue into mid-December where a decision will be made whether to proceed with buying and fielding the system early next fiscal quarter, according to Dean.

    Bradley is “a bit behind” Stryker because it is a much more challenging platform to integrate on because of the limitations of the vehicle in terms of space, weight and power. The Bradley could not support APS without an upcoming upgrade that helps restore power to the vehicle.

    IMI has begun the tuning phase of characterization, having completed design and installation activity, Dean said. If all goes according to plan, government characterization will begin in the November time frame and will last roughly four months. Bradley’s government characterization phase is expected to last longer than the other two vehicles because of the added challenges of the platform, he added.

    [Iron Fist revealed: The likely interim active protection system for Bradley]

    With both vehicles, the Army will assess how the systems perform and then service leadership will decide “is this good enough and, if so, what do you want to do, do you want to push that for rapid deployment, do you want us to go back to the drawing board, do you want us to evaluate a different system,” Dean said. “All those options are on the table until we come back with data.”

    All of the systems have gone or will go through rigorous characterization testing. In the case of the Abrams, it had two-live fire phases. One phase was a performance characterization, which is to assess how the system itself performs, and the second phase is to test it in operationally realistic conditions in a cluttered battlefield with moving vehicles against live threats.

    “Unique to this evaluation that we, the U.S., hasn’t done before and, frankly, most nations and contractors evaluating their APS systems, we are shooting live threats at real vehicles,” Dean said, “not next to the vehicle, not at a test rig, at the actual platform. We are taking a fair amount of risk that, hey, if the system doesn’t perform as indicated, we are going to hurt some very expensive pieces of hardware.”

    Fortunately for the Trophy system, it “exceeded our expectations, it performed extremely well,” Dean said. “Really the only issues we had were those things that were associated with the tank, not so much with Trophy and we worked out how to address and mitigate those to the point the tank crews we had evaluate it were happy with them.”

    For example, installation issues on the tank weren’t so much related to the weight of the system but more the balance of the Abram’s turret, which was affected because of where the system had to be mounted on the vehicle, according to Dean.

    “There were some concerns that, hey, this may have an impact on the tanks’ ability to engage targets,” Dean said, that pushed the fielding decision back slightly, by just a few weeks.

    But the Army quickly went out and tested the tank’s ability to engage targets with Trophy installed on it and “all the crews said, ‘We would take this to war tomorrow,’” following the exercise, Dean said.

    “This was to give more confidence,” he said. “There was never a question about performance of Trophy itself. This was about, okay, Trophy works great, does the tank still do all the things it needs to do.”

    [Army speeds up future Modular Active Protection System for combat vehicles]

    Now that the Army is moving forward with fielding Trophy on Abrams, it will move into some more advanced testing and also begin production in parallel, Dean said.

    The service has to procure more test hardware because it shot down a large amount of missiles and fired many countermeasures, “so we’ve got to replenish our test stock,” he said.

    The second phase of testing Abrams and Trophy will enter is to prove the system is safe enough to deploy by running it through more complex conditions. One test, for example, will evaluate what happens when you have multiple tanks in close proximity on the battlefield all running an APS system at the same time, Dean said.

    The Army will also buy the Trophy systems early during the second phase of simultaneous testing and production because there is nothing that is going to change in the design of the system, he noted.

    [Rheinmetall wants in on US Army fleet protection effort]

    Dean said the Army remains interested in “at least one other commercially available system” -- a German system from Rheinmetall called the Advanced Defense System. “It was actually very close in the running for Bradley, but ultimately Iron Fist was selected because of the integration burdens of the platform,” he said. “If we had the budget to do a fourth system right now, we’d be doing a fourth system right now.”

    A brigade’s of Abrams tanks in Europe will soon receive the Trophy Active Protection System. (Army photo)

    https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...ection-system/

    Seguro que los Grengos están apurados por adoptar rápidamente APS, ante los ataques de saturación de misiles desde los tanques del oso peludo......


    Leyendo notas así, se echa a volar la imaginación de cuál va a ser en definitiva el APS seleccionado para equipar las chatarras poticuadradas finitas de lateral, A4 mapochinas.


    Siempre el "Combat-Proven" atrae.


    Saludos.

  5. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lima, Perú
    Posts
    2,913
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C-7 View Post

    An Abrams tank equipped with the Trophy Active Protection System. (Army photo)
    En esa foto se dejan ver los bloques adosados al frontal de la torre para simular el peso del nuevo blindaje. El Trophy en sí no incrementa tanto el peso, pero potencialmente podía inducir efectos adversos en la estabilidad del conjunto de torre del Abrams, para lo cual el US Army tuvo que certificar que no hubiese problemas en ese sentido al momento de accionar la torre y hacer fuego. Estéticamente no termina de convencerme la solución (lo han dejado medio "orejón"), pero es lo de menos; lo importante es que funcione.

    Por otra parte, el incremento en peso adicional parece tener apenas un impacto mínimo en la movilidad del tanque, pero por si las dudas, en AUSA '17 se mostró un prototipo de suspensión hydrogas propuesto por Horstman Defence Systems Ltd para el Abrams:




    Saludos
    Aforismo forístico: "si está en Internet, debe ser cierto".

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •