NAMER with New Remote Turret

NAMER 

IFV VARIANT

NAMER IFV with Remote Turret

Namer is the Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier (H-APC) of the Israel Defense Forces based on the chassis of the Merkava 4 MBT. Namer H-APC has a crew of 12 including driver, commander, gunner and 9 dismounts. The vehicle is heavily armored against ballistic and mine/IED threats. The combat weight of NAMER is 62 tons! So that's why it is called a Heavy APC..

NAMER Heavy APC

So far, we have seen Namers armed with only 12.7mm or 40mm grenade launcher armed Remote Weapon Stations (RWS). It's been tested with Rafael and Elbit's 30mm remote weapon stations before, however the in service vehicles are only armed with 12.7mm RWS's.

However, Israel Defense website (http://www.israeldefense.co.il)  has published an article that shows the Namer armed with a new remote turret. The turret does not look like the existing products of Rafael or Elbit. The turret seems quite large.

In the article, it is stated that the turret is unmanned and armed with a 30mm automatic cannon. 

As far as I can see from the video, the turret is fully armored. There two sighting systems, one on the LHS of the main gun, probably gunner's and the other on top of the turret on RHS of the main gun being most probably the commander's sighting system. The commander's sight system seems to have independent traverse, indicating hunter-killer capability.

The main gun seems to be a 30mm Orbital ATK Mk44. From the video I was unable to see exactly  if there is  a secondary machine gun; however I highly suspect there should be one.

There are multiple access hatched on the top, sides and back of the turret. 

The turret has active protection system installed. On the front and rear sides, it seems the Rafael Trophy Active Protection System radars are located and on the top of the side protrusions on each side, Trophy launchers and blast shields are located.

The article states the turret will also be installed on the new Eitan 8x8 armored vehicle.

References:
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/30541

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.

FNSS Remote Missile Turret with Kornet ATGM

IDEF 2017

DEFENSE EXHIBITION HIGHLIGHTS

KORNET ATGM

Remote Turret from FNSS

FNSS Remote Missile Turret

In this year's IDEF 2017 Defense Exhibition in Istanbul, Turkey, FNSS Savunma Sistemleri unveiled the Remote Kornet ATGM turret integrated on the Pars 4x4 platform.

The turret is armed with two Kornet missiles and a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun. The Kornet missile is a Russian laser beam guided missile with 5.500m maximum range. 

The turret is remotely controlled from inside the vehicle via a gunner's console.

FNSS Kornet ATGM Remote Turret

FNSS Remote ATGM Turret

ZSSW-30 Remote Turret Part II

ZSSW-30 

Remote Turret

Part II

Copyright: defense-update.com

More than a year ago, Warfare Technology had an article on the new Polish ZSSW-30 Remote Turret by the Polish Company, Huta Stalowa Wola or HSW.

A new prototype of the turret was revealed during MSPO 2015 Exhibition. It seems the testing on the turret has already started.

Copyright: J. Sabacc / Defence24.pl

ZSSW-30 is an unmanned / remote turret with the same ring diameter as the Oto Melara Hitfist-30 turret that is already in service in Polish Army on Rosomak 8x8s. The turret has an elevation range of -9° to +60°.

The second prototype of the new Polish ZSSW-30 Turret Unveiled at MSPO Exhibition
(Remigiusz Wilk)

The turret is armed with a 30mm  Mk44 chaingun and a coaxial UKM-2000C 7.62mm machine gun. 

The turret has 200 rounds of 30mm ready-to-fire onboard and 400 7.62mm rounds.

I was unable to see where the links for the 30mm gun are ejected from the photos available. This lead me to thinking that the links are collected inside, however I might be wrong as well. 

On the right hand side of the turret, two Spike LR missiles are mounted.Spike LR is a fire and forget type missile with a imaging infrared seeker. The range is 4.000m with a penetration capability of more than 700mm RHA.

Dual Spike LR Launchers
Copyright:http://www.altair.com.pl/

The gunner's sight is Polish PCO GOC-1 Nike dual axis stabilized sight system.

Gunner's Sight: PCO GOC-1 Nike

Gunner's Sight: PCO GOC-1 Nike

GOC-1 Sight unit consists of a Mid Wave Thermal Imager, Day CCD Camera and a 10km range Laser Range Finder. The sight unit has -20° to +70° elevation and nx360° traverse capability.

The Commander's Sight is PCO God-1 Iris Sight system with a Long Wave thermal imager (D/R/I -4.95/1.6/0.8km), day camera and laser range finder (10km). Thank you, Totem!

PCO GOD-1 Iris Independent Commander's Sight

I was unable to reach any weight data for this turret. Considering the unmanned configuration and the armament, my assumption would be around 2.5tons combat weight. 

Of which, I was pretty close with my weight estimation... Turret weighs 2.400kg with Level II armor package (STANAG 4569) - Thank you Shas.

When I look at the frontal section of the turret, there is no add-on armor in front of the rotor section. This leads me to thinking that the frontal protection level should be around Level II (STANAG 4569).

Frontal Aspect of the Turret

As far as I can see The Polish Army is seeking a local alternative to the Oto Melara Hitfist 30P Two-Man Turrets that they have in inventory on Rosomak 8x8s.

HitFist 30P Two Man Turret
Copyright: http://www.sokol.slupsk.pl/

However, it is not so clear to me why they are opting for an unmanned solution instead of the Two-Man HitFist Turrets. Ive been reading they had good experience with the Hitfist turrets from Polish Army's Operations in Afghanistan. But that's for the Polish Army to decide..

Thanks to Thotem, we have a good and detailed explanation:

Rosomak is required to be amphibious. Poland is criscrossed with several rivers, and being able to manouvre in response to hostile action was always considered pivotal. Meanwhile, polish army always considered its fording/rivercrossing/engineering support inadequate/underfunded. Thus, when Rosomak was comissioned, the specific requirement was for the vehicle to be able to swim. This was achieved, at the expense of ballistic protection. Even for Afghanistan, the vehicles were uparmoured (which is aided by the fact that the vehicle has fully modular armour protection).

However, while at the comissioning OTO Melara was swearing they WILL be able to integrate Spike ATGMs without affecting the core parameters of the Hitfist-30P, this was later proven impossible. While integration was eventually successfully completed, there are two "sticking points": first, the integration effectively requires a new thermal camera. Second, the upgraded turret has significantly increased weight - that is, beyond the limit required for amphibious operations.

This means Polish Army has to spend not only on upgrading the turret, but also on the vehicle hull for it to remain amphibious, or replace the turret. Considering that ZSSW-30 uses the same Mk.44 ATK cannon, that component can be reused. Sights need to be replaced either way - and that makes replacing the entire turret a palatable option, as it also creates extra space inside the vehicle.

That last argument seems to be fairly important, too - Afghanistan ops changed the individual soldier's outfit and gear, and what was initially considered enough space for 8 troopers, NOW seems awfully tight, so the new turret also addresses a previously-unforseen issue that the line commanders face, while also increasing firepower.


There is also a chassis-specific quirk. Hitfist-30P targeting block is to the right of the barrel... right behind the engine cooling and exhaust on the Rosomak/AMV chassis. Hot air from there doesn't really help using either the optics or IR. ZSSW-30 moves the entire block to the opposite side of the vehicle.

5 ZSSW-30 turrets are planned to undergo qualification testing in 2016 and the possible series production to commence in 2017.

While we are on Remote Turrets, Enter Epoch...

Russia's Entry in the Remote Turrets Arena:

Epoch 30mm

Epoch 30mm Remote Turret

Since the May 9th parade in Moscow, the new Russian Armored Vehicles and Armata MBT have been quite a hot topic.

Epoch 30mm Remote Turret

 On the new T-15 Heavy IFV, Kurganets-25 IFV and Boomerang 8x8, there was one big commonality and that was the Epoch Remote Turret.

  

Epoch Turret on T15 Heavy IFV

Epoch Turret is developed by the KBP Design Bureau in Tula, Russia.

The turret is remotely operated from inside the vehicle and armed with a 2A42 gas operated, dual-feed 30mm autocannon and a coaxial 7.62mm PKT Machine Gun. 

The 2A42 cannon has a maximum rate of fire of 800 and a muzzle velocity of 960 m/s. 

The turret also has two Kornet-EM ATGM missiles on each side.

Kornet-EM is the most modern version of the Kornet missile system with three different warheads, a tandem HEAT warhead for tanks, a thermobaric warhead and a HE warhead. The most important capability is the automatic target tracker in the system that eliminates the gunner having to track the target until the missile impact. The range is also increased to 8-10km's.

Epoch Turret on Boomerang 8x8 IFV

Epoch Turret Top View

The ammunition for the main and coaxial guns are stored in  bustle located ammoboxes. The 2A42 gun has a impressive load of 500 ready rounds with 340 of these being of the HE type and the remaining 160 being of AP type.

As you can see from the image above, the large hatch at the back of the turret is most probably for the reloading of ammunition. It leads me to think that there is probably no reloading from under armor for this turret. 

The coax 7.62mm gun has 2.000 ready rounds which is also quite a feat.

The turret has all electric drives and has 2 axis stabilization capability.

The internal layout of the turret is shown below:

Epoch Turret Layout

 The turret has got two identical looking stabilized sights for the gunner and commander. A computerized fire control system is fitted with thermal imagers, day cameras and laser range finders for increased first round hit probability. All around the turret, laser warning receivers and smoke grenade launchers are located.

 

We will see if this new turret will be the universal turret for the new toys of the Russian Army.

Epoch Turret on Stand

Rear Side of the Turret

On Manned vs Unmanned Turrets

On

Manned vs Unmanned

Turrets....

I've been reading on some articles recently on turrets, mainly the issue of Manned vs Unmanned (Remote) turrets.

I think two recent events have an impact on the heated discussions, these being:

• The US Army's intention of upgunning the 2nd ACR Stryker 8x8 vehicles with a weapon system having higher lethality and effectiveness than the current .50cal RWS.

• The turrets required for the Australian Land Forces' 8x8 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) component of the Australian Land 400 programme.

Kongsberg's MCT30 Remote Turret during demonstrations at Fort Benning, February 2014

 Citing from one of my previous posts on Remote Turrets:

• Remote turrets are enclosed structures with all the subsystems like the ammunition feed chutes, ammo boxes and drives are inside an armored cocoon. On the other hand RWS have an open architecture.
   
• Remote Turrets offer an important advantage of reloading under armor whereas in most of the RWS's, the crew has to get outside to reload ammunition.

Remote Turret Classification

However remote turrets have some drawbacks based on the crew being located inside the hull. Main item being total dependency on the sensors/electro-optics. 

During operations, the the commander's capability to crack open the hatch and have a look around the vicinity provides a big advantage in terms of situational awereness.

In addition, the sighting systems in the remote turrets, cannot include direct view optics, which is also avery important for some armies such as British Army.

Another issue for the remote turrets is the difficulty of the gunner losing the feeling on the turret/barrel orientation. 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 by utilizing easy to understand indications on the gunner's display; however still requires careful design.

One of the good articles I was reading was from the Australian Defence Technology by Ian Bostock with the title of "Pointers hint at unmanned future for CRV turret".

One of the points in the article states that Remote Turrets offer significant weight savings (the article says 1.200 to 2.000kg's) compared with a manned turret with equivalent protection levels.

I have to disagree with this statement.

Suppose you are converting a two-men turret to a remote turret keeping the protection level the same ie. STANAG 4569 Level IV. The structural elements and equipment you can totally eliminate in a remote turret are:

• Hatch mechanisms (hinges, locks, handles, etc.)
• Periscopes
• Spall liners (if present on the 2 men turret)
• Basket structure
• Seats

Also for the remote turret, you have the option to reduce the ring diameter from a generally accepted value of around 1.5-1.6m in a two men turret to a ring around 1m diameter. This would help you reduce the weight of the ring gear (or slewing ring in other words).

 

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 gun and the coax gun that were generally in the basket for the two-men turret have to be relocated to the turret hull. The former 2 men turret hull did not include these, so it usually means you have to increase the turret hull size to accommodate the ammo boxes. The following images shows the ammobox size for a 30mm turret with linked and linkless ammunition types. These ammo boxes takes up considerable volume inside the turret hull for a remote turret.

 

The AmmoBox for 30mm Turret (GD Mk46)

 

 

Linkless Ammunition Feed System with Two 75 Round Ammo Boxes on Each Side of 30mm Cannon

 

 

As size means more surface area and more surface area means weight, you dont get to save that much weight by converting to a remote turret.

 

AmmoBox inside the hull for a remote turret

 

Also, for the remote turrets, the turret cutout on the vehicle roof has to be covered by a hatch. This also adds weight.

 

The result shows, you usually dont save significant amount of weight with a remote turret having the same protection level as a two men turret.

However, the trick is reducing the protection level for the remote turret considering the fact that there is no crew inside. This approach would pave the way for weight reduction.

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 probably 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 awereness and control over the battlefield would have a definite advantage.

 

• If the vehicle is a reconnaissance vehicle that is to be used for recon-with-fire principle, again the two-men turrets offer more advantages for situational awereness. 

• For a reconnaisance platform relying more on electro-optics and sensors, 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.