TEBER MODULAR MEDIUM CALIBER TURRET

TEBER 

MODULAR MEDIUM CALIBER TURRET

Teber Two Man Turret

In IDEF 2017 exhibition, FNSS Savunma Sistemleri of Turkey unveiled Teber Two-Man Turret for the first time.

TEBER is a modular turret system in the medium caliber range that can be offered in Two-Man or Unmanned (Remote) configurations. 

Turret is armed with an Orbital ATK 30mm or 40mm Bushmaster automatic cannon as main armament. Mk44 Bushmaster cannon is the next generation member of the OATK's Bushmaster family after the venerable M242 25mm Bushmaster. In standard configuration Mk44 fires 30x173mm ammunition. However, with change of barrel and some parts in the feeder of the gun, the same cannon can fire what is called as the 'SuperShot 40', that fires 40x180mm ammunition.

This enables a modular lethality capability to the turret system, that can be configured to engage different threat levels.

Mk44 Bushmaster 30/40mm

30x173mm and SuperShot 40: 40x180mm

Both calibers offer HE, AP and Programmable Air Burst PABM ammunition. However Supershot 40 offers increased capabilities such as:

• Nearly 1.5 times lethality increase in HE ammunition over 30mm
• 3 times lethality increase for PABM over 30mm
• Nearly 1.5 times penetration increase in APFSDS ammunition over 30mm

Teber turret is also armed with an OATK Mk52 7.62mm electric operated machine gun as the secondary armament. This machine gun enables better control on firing, no dependence to the propellant quality and strong belt pull eliminating the need for a powered forwarder for large quantities of ready rounds. The propellant fumes from firing discharged inside the turret is dramatically minimized compared with the conventional gas operated machine guns. In fact, Mk52 is the redesigned new version of the venerable Hughes EX-34 or L94A1 machine gun used in British Army Challenger and Warriors.

Mk52 7.62mm ChainGun

The weapons in Teber can function through an elevation range of -10 to +50 degrees.

The key to effective use of these weapons is the ability to rapidly acquire and accurately engage targets. This is provided by the advanced fire control system, independent stabilized sight systems for the gunner and commander and the electric gun turret drive system. The gun and turret drive systems are controlled using gyro stabilization for accurate fire on the move. The turret drives in the manned configuration are provided with manual drives that are located in the gunner's compartment.

The independent sight systems provide the ability to fight in daylight and darkness, in all weather, and in smoke and dust with high image quality due to its independent stabilization and in Hunter-Killer mode increasing effectiveness. The embedded fire control system with automatic target tracking (ATT) provides automatic ballistic offsets in lead and super elevation for selected ammunition ballistics, target range, cross wind, temperature, and cant.

The commander's sight has 360 degree panoramic motion capability and armor protection. Both the gunner's and commander's sights are equipped with thermal cameras, day cameras and laser range finders.

The manned variant also houses a direct optic back-up sight system with armored housing that enables another reversionary mode for the crew.

TEBER-30 manned version is a Two-Man turret with commander and gunner located in the turret basket. Commander is seated on the right hand side of the turret with the gunner to his left. Both gunner and commander has full control of the turret with the commander having override capability.

Turret offers different modes of operation for the commander and gunner providing flexibility in tactical situations. Both the commander and gunner can take control of the any sighting system in the turret and also the command of the weapons.

Teber Two-Man configuration offers a very large ready round capability with 300 30mm ready rounds in two compartments. The gunner identifies the type of ammunition in each compartment to the fire control system and the system applies the correct ballistic parameters.

For the 7.62mm machine gun there is 1.200 ready rounds inside.

The turret structure is a ballistically protected enclosed structure that houses the crew compartment, main and secondary weapons, ammunition stowage for the main and secondary guns, radios and intercom, gun turret drive system, fire control system, gunner and commander sights and sensors and command interfaces for the commander and gunner.

The turret offers STANAG 4569 Level IV ballistic protection all-around thru the use of ceramic composite and RHA steel armor. The turret can also be offered with a frontal protection level of STANAG 4569 Level V.

The interior of the turret is designed for growth potential and maximum crew comfort.

TEBER Remote Turret

In IDEF 2017, FNSS also exhibits the unmanned configuration of the Teber turret on the Kaplan-30 IFV.

Teber Turret in Unmanned Configuration

Teber Remote Turret is also armed with 30/40mm Mk44 autocannon and 7.62mm Mk52 machine gun.

The whole turret is above the hull with no penetration to the vehicle offering more room inside the vehicle for dismounts. The gunner and commander are located inside the vehicle and command the turret thru their command consoles.

Teber 30/40 Remote Turret

The turret similar to the manned version is equipped with two stabilized sight systems for the gunner and commander, with the commander sight having 360 degrees panoramic motion capability.

The ballistic protection offered for the remote version is configurable to provide an optimized weight solution.

The fire control and other capabilities of the remote version is the same as the manned version providing maximum commonality between the configurations.

This also offers a common turret family that can be used in manned and unmanned configurations in fleet of armored vehicles with different missions.

My take on Remote vs Manned Turrets..

These days the remote turrets have become a viable alternative to manned systems. However I do not believe that the remote systems will totally replace the manned systems very soon.

Remote turrets have some drawbacks based on the crew having been located inside the hull with total dependency on the sensors/electro-optics. 

Whereas in a two-man turret, the commander's having all around surveillance vision from the highest point of the vehicle or even looking thru the periscopes provide an important advantage in terms of situational awareness which is somehow a lacking capability in remote turrets. In addition, the sighting systems in the remote turrets, cannot include direct view optics, which is also an important requirement in some armies today. Although there are options such as fiber optic sights, the limitations on the number of fibers that can be bundled, degrades the image quality.

Another issue for the remote turrets is the difficulty of the gunner keeping his awareness of the barrel orientation with respect to the vehicle. The gunner is located inside the hull and his sensory feedback only feels the vehicle accelerations; thus after a short while it is not uncommon for the gunner to start having difficulties on where the turret is oriented with respect to the vehicle, especially when the stabilization is turned on. 

This can be overcome to some extent by utilizing easy to understand indications on the gunner's display.

I also want to stress another issue that I frequently hear that says the remote turrets offer an important advantage in weight compared with manned turrets. This is not entirely a correct statement. First of all the main difference structurally between a manned and unmanned turret is the elimination of basket structure, crew seating, crew hatches and periscopes in the remote turret concept. On the other hand, you still have to put two seats inside the vehicle for the commander and gunner. Also the displays, handles, structural elements for these still have to be located inside the vehicle. So these are weight-wise not totally eliminated albeit some reduction in the volume invaded compared with the basket swept volume for a manned turret.

However, the ammunition boxes for the main and secondary armament that are generally in the basket for the two-man turret have to be relocated to the turret hull. The hull of the manned turret does not include these, so it usually means you have to increase the turret hull dimensions to accommodate the ammo boxes. As increased dimensions translate to more surface area and more surface area translates to increase in weight, you don’t get to save that much weight by converting to a remote turret.

The trick here is the reduction of protection levels for a remote turret that enables reduction in weight. When you have the crew inside the hull and can accept a reduction in the protection level of the turret, you can save considerable weight by using a remote turret instead of a manned one.

So, in my opinion, the remote turrets although offer some advantages are not the perfect solution to replace all the other turrets.

The correct answer lies in the configuration and mission of the vehicle, such as:

• If the vehicle is a pure IFV that is going to go head to head with the enemy vehicles, two men turrets offering more situational awareness and control over the battlefield would have a definite advantage.
• Again if the vehicle is configured as a personnel carrier - APC, you would need as much room inside as possible, making the remote turret the preferred choice. The US Stryker lethality program is a good example of this approach. US Army naturally does not want to reduce the number of dismounts in the vehicle and thus opted for a remote turret.
• If the vehicle is a reconnaissance vehicle that is to be used for recon-with-fire principle, again the two-man turrets offer more advantages for situational awareness. 
• For a reconnaissance platform relying more on electro-optics and sensors following the principle of reconnaissance by stealth, you will need more room inside the vehicle for operators, more displays, consoles, etc. Remote turrets should be preferred. 
• For a command platform, again you need more room inside for command consoles, communication equipment, etc. Remote turrets would be a better solution.

Paper: Automatic Cannons and Ammunition in Infantry Fighting Vehicles

Author wants express his thanks to MSI Magazine for their support in the preparation and publication of this paper. 

http://www.milscint.com/en/

Third Round in US Army's IFV Replacement

FUTURE FIGHTING VEHICLE

Third round has started in US Army's ill-fated Bradley Replacement Efforts

It was FCS - Future Combat Systems first in 2002 that aims to replace M2 Bradley with a new vehicle, namely: XM1206 ICV.

XM1206 ICV

The FCS was cancelled in 2009 and XM1206 went with it.

Then in 2009, Ground Combat Vehicle, GCV - a program aiming for the replacement of Bradley starts in 2009. 

BAE Systems GCV Concept

GCV aimed at developing an Infantry Fighting Vehicle with a high degree of protection using available technologies.

However, on February 2014, GCV gots terminated following its predecessor.

Fast forward to June 2015, enter Future Fighting Vehicle via Defense News:

From the ashes of the US Army's canceled 70-ton ground combat vehicle, the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV) program has begun to sprout — at least concepts for it.

The Army has awarded two contracts of more than $28 million each to BAE Systems Land and Armaments and General Dynamics Land Systems to develop design concepts for the FFV. The work is due Nov. 28, 2016.

The effort is meant to inform whether the Army will produce an entirely new vehicle or a potential replacement for the BAE-manufactured Bradley fighting vehicle, (which I didnt understand  or lead to a third round of improvements for the Bradley.

The companies are to conduct trade studies, requirements analysis, and modeling and simulation, and assess technology capability and maturity to support each of three design concepts...

We will all see if really the third time is the charm...

FNSS's Brand New IFV - Kaplan

FNSS just revealed their brand new Tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Kaplan 20 with the brand new turret.

Eurosatory 2014

German Puma is back from desert!

Spz Puma was in UAE for desert trials. It is back from the desert retaining its desert camouflage.

One Man Turrets

One-Man Turrets

Condensed Fire Power

French Tarask Turret on VBCI 8x8

One-Man Turrets (1MT), although not as common as the two-men turrets and remote weapon stations (RWS), offer a significant boost in fire power for Infantry Fighting Vehicles- IFVs.

The advantage of the 1MT comes from its compact dimensions, small ring diameter and light weight compared with the 2-Men Turrets.

As a comparison, a one-man turret has approximately 1m ring diameter and a combat weight of 1.8 tons; whereas a two-men turret (2MT) with same weapon and more or less equal protection level comes with a ring diameter of 1.5m and combat weight of more than 2.5tons.

IFV Turret selection depends on many parameters, however the choice between 1MT and 2MT usually comes to the doctrine of the mechanised infantry. If the commander of the IFV is also the commander of the squad and if he is expected to dismount with the squad, a one-man turret is usually the preferred choice.

The sweep volume turret basket takes up inside the vehicle is also another point to be considered along with the weight on top of the vehicle and its effect on the vehicle stability.

FNSS Sharpshooter Turret on ACV300 Malaysia

However when we look at today's IFVs, the preferred solution is mostly 2 men turrets. There are also many reasons for this. Locating the commander in the turret up above the vehicle thus providing him the best situational awareness and better means of coordinating and commanding the gunner being among the primary reasons.

One-Man Turrets, on the other hand provide a feasible upgrade solution to existing armored vehicles to provide them IFV capabilities, especially the turrets armed with medium caliber cannons.

FNSS Sharpshooter Turret on AV8 8x8 Malaysia

Some modern IFVs with their turrets:

• M2 Bradley - 2 Men Turet
• CV90 - 2 Men Turret
• Spz Puma - Unmanned Turret
• Polish Rosomak (Patria AMV) - 2 Men Turret
• BMP 3 - Two Men Turret
• Warrior - 2 Men Turret
• Freccia 8x8 - 2 Men Turret
• Dardo IFV - 2 Men Turret
• FRES SV - 2 Men Turret
• LAV 25 - 2 Men Turret
• Canadian LAV III - 2 Men Turret
• Bionix IFV - 2 Men Turret
• K21 IFV - 2 Men Turret
• Mitsubishi Type 89 IFV - 2 Men Turret
• VBCI 8x8 - 1 Man Turret
• Malaysian AV8 8x8 - 1 Man Turret
• Malaysian Adnan IFV - 1 Man Turret
• YPR-765 - 1 Man Turret
• AAV7 - 1 Man Turret
• VBCI 8x8 - 1 Man Turret
• M1117 ASV - 1 Man Turret
• Turkish ACV - 1 Man Turret

UGWS 40/50 Turret on M1117 ASV

Tarask Turret on VBCI

Dragar Turret on Turkish IFV

1 Man  Turret on USMC AAV7

©2014 Warfare Technology

ATK Bushmaster III Automatic Cannon

Bushmaster III 35mm Cannon

For today's threats as well as future's??

Bushmaster III is the biggest and baddest member of the Bushmaster Chainguns that is available for integration. Although there is Bushmaster IV 40mm cannon, it is, as far as I know, in prototype stage.

Bushmaster III is a electric driven, link-fed automatic cannon that can be employed either as a 35mm or with changing the barrel and forward feeder assembly can chamber SuperShot50, 50mm ammunition. There are some works going on for the linkless feed Bushmaster 35mm; however the in-service guns are link-fed.

The specification for the Bushmaster III is roughly:

In order to better see the differences between 25mm M242, 30mm Mk44 and 35mm Bushmaster III, here is a short comparison:

And here is another image that compares the sizes of M242 25mm, Mk44 30mm and Bushmaster III autocannons:

Just looking at the size difference between the M242 25mm Bushmaster, you can see that Bushmaster III is a monster.

However, this monster has also quite a strong bite as well!

Let's look at the High Explosive (HE) ammuntion:

The 25mm HE projectile has a mass of 180 g.

The 30mm HE Projectile has a mass of 362 g.

The 35mm HE Projectile has a mass of 550 g!!

Just look at the HE difference and imagine the destructive effect of the 35mm HE!

For an IFV vehicle, the real bite of the gun comes thru the armor piercing capability versus armored threats.

The lethality performance against armor plate is usually expressed when the projectile is not hitting on a vertical plate, but impacting on a sloped armor as shown in the image below. The commonly accepted method is expressed as 60 degree obliquity.

 

    

 Now keeping this information in mind, the graph below shows the penetration capability of 25mm, 30mm and 35mm Armor Piercing Sabot rounds:

Some highlights from the graph above:

i. 30mm has ~30% more penetration than 25mm.

ii. 35mm has ~60% more penetration than 25mm.

We should also keep in mind that:

i. 25mm AP round tracer burns-out at around 2000 meters, thus seeing fall-of-shot beyond 2km becomes really difficult.

ii. Due to trajectory and velocity decrease, 25mm round's accuracy drops down considerably beyond 2km's.

iii. However, with the 35mm, accurate firing beyond 3km is possible and proven by the Dutch gunners from CV9035 in Afghanistan.

In terms of lethality, 30x173mm caliber is performing quite good against today's battlefield threats like BMP-3.

However, TNO's 30mm vs 35mm comparison document states that:

One other important issue for Bushmaster 3 turret integration is the ammunition capacity.

Before going into that, we should better have an idea of the size of 35mm ammunition. I believe this can help:

Now, getting back the issue of ammunition capacity:

i. Belted 35mm ammunition would be really difficult to handle during loading because of the weight and size of the belts of ammo.

ii. Linkless feed systems can be an appropriate alternative for 35mm feed systems. I will explain Linkless Feed later on.

iii. The number of ready to fire ammunition is very important, ie. CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds of belted 35mm ready-to-fire, which is not bad.

However, an IFV turret with Bushmaster III and 100 ready-to-fire rounds would be a real winner.

iv. For a turret that is armed with Bushmaster III, the First Round Hit Probability (FRHP) would be especially important. Because you no longer have an ammo capacity such as Bradley's 300 rounds of 25mm. So for 35mm, your fire control system should make every shot count! 

©2014 Warfare Technology