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.

M230LF Alternative for .50cal & 40mm AGL??

ATK 30mm M230LF ChainGun

An Alternative for Weapon Systems

to Replace

.50cal and 40mm AGL?

The story of the M230 30mm autocannon begins with Hughes Helicopter in early 1970's thru the effort to develop AH-64 Apache Helicopter. 

M230 ChainGun is now part of ATK's ChainGun family.

AH-64 Apache M230 30mm ChainGun

M230 forms an integral part of the Apache helicopter with its 1200 round magazine. It enables he Apache crew to engage fortifications, light armor and personnel in the open.

M230 30mm ChainGun

Ammunition

M230 fires 30x113mm ammunition. The ammunition was first developed for British ADEN and French DEFA 550 revolver cannons in 1950s. These guns were developed for aircraft usage.

30x113 Ammunition

One common mistake about M230 gun and its ammunition is to think that it is better than the 25mm (25x137mm) and/or equal to the larger 30mm-30x173mm that is fired from Mk44/MK30 cannons.

In fact, 30x113mm ammunition can be best described as 'Light 30'. The following image shows the size comparison of 30x113mm and its big brother 30x173mm rounds.

You can see from the above image that, 30x173mm round fired from Mk44 cannon has a lot bigger punch than the M230's 30x113mm.

Three types of ammunition were developed for M230. These are:

• M788 TP Target Practice
• M789 HEDP High Explosive Dual Purpose
• M799 HEI High Explosive Incendiary

Lethality

For AH-64 and MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator helicopters, the preferred and widely used combat round is M789 HEDP. Some of its characteristics:

• Weight: 350grams
• Muzzle velocity: 805 m/s
• Anti-personel effect: 4m lethality radius
• Penetration: 25mm thick RHA Rolled Homogenous Armor at 50degree obliquity at a range of 500m

As comparison for lethality, 25mm APFSDS round that can be fired from a M242 Bushmaster cannon penetrates around 45mm RHA at 500m range.

The penetration for 30x173mm APFSDS round that is fired from Mk44 can easily penetrate about 55mm RHA at the same range.

So these numbers say that M230 is not a direct replacement for 25mm M242 Bushmaster, let alone Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm.

Development of M230LF

ATK started the development of a new variant of M230 chaingun aimed at ground and naval platforms. It is called M230LF with LF stands for LinkFed.

The development effort concentrated on the following changes & improvements:

• Link-feed ammunition to enable conventional belted ammunition usage and simple ammo cans
• Increased barrel length to enable higher muzzle velocity
• 24V DC electrical operation required for ground platforms
• Hang-Fire protection to improve manned turret safety
• Rate of fire better suited to land and naval applications

So how best M230/LF can be best employed?

Although 30x113mm ammunition is a member of the Medium Caliber Family, it is located at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of lethality.

However, M230 is a  compact, lightweight and low recoil cannon.

As you can see from the image, M230LF has a total length of around 2.2m. 

• 25mm M242 has a total length of 2.6m
• 30mm Mk44 has a total length of 3.4m

In terms of weight:

• M230LF total weight: 72.6kg
• 25mm M242 total weight: 119kg
• 30mm Mk44 total weight: 156kg

Recoil force:

• M230LF Recoil:  7.34kN (Naval)/ 28kN (Ground)
• 25mm M242 Recoil: 40kN
• 30mm Mk44 Recoil: 35.6kN

Looking at the values above, it seems M230LF can be a good alternative for light turrets and Remote Weapon Stations that are armed with:

• 12.7mm/.50 cal M2 Heavy Machine Gun
• 40mm Mk19/GMG Automatic Grenade Launcher

In that case, the main reasons/advantages will be:

• M230LF's high lethality and longer range compared with M2/Mk19
• M230LF's straight trajectory compared with Mk19's high trajectory
• M230LF being an electric driven gun that does not need any fancy mechanisms such as trigger solenoid and cocking actuator
• Frontal case ejection that makes it easier to integrate in a turret
• Lower weight, smaller dimensions and lower recoil enables light turrets to be developed. This also provides light platforms packed with higher fire power.

However, M230LF also has some drawbacks when compared with M2 & Mk19

• Apparently higher initial cost
• Comparably higher weight that limits man portability
• Lack of tripod operation in case of removal from the turret or platform.

The images below shows some applications of M230LF:

Mk51 Weapon System onboard LCS

M230LF would be a very good capability to upgrade the firepower of some platforms such as:

- US Marine Corps AAV7 Amphibious Assault Vehicle

- M1117 4x4 Armored Security Vehicle

- M113 to enable more firepower than the current .50cal cupolas

- M-ATV

- M1126 Stryker 8x8

in 1-Man and remote turret designs.

Textron's 1 Man Turret Concept with M230 ChainGun

CMI's CPWS with M230 ChainGun

Oerlikon 35mm Revolver Cannon

35mm Cannon Story continues:

Oerlikon/Rheinmetall

35mm Revolver Cannon

Our story for 35mm cannon continues with Rheinmetall's - formerly Oerlikon's - 35/1000 Revolver gun.

This gun is mainly used for air defense. THe interesting feature is the Revolver principle:

In most simple terms the principle is basically the same as your old Six Shooter.

The cylinder including the chambers - aka revolver- rotates counter-clock wise, the chamber at 6 o'clock position lines up with the barrel. 35/1000 cannon has 4 chambers in the revolver as shown above.

Another image showing the principle:

The 35/1000 cannon is gas operated with a rate of fire of 1.000 rounds per minute!

35/1000 gun chambers 35x228mm ammunition and uses linkless ammunition.

The gun is the business end of the German SkyShield C-RAM (Counter Rocket/Artillery/Mortar) system. 

Gun data:

Caliber: 35mm

Length: 4.11m

Weight: 450kg

35/1000 gun in the SkyShield Remote Turret has been integrated on a Piranha III, Piranha IV, Boxer vehicles as a mobile air defense vehicle solution.

 

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