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.

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.

 

 

M1 Tank Test Bed (TTB) with Unmanned Turret

M1 Abrams Tank Test Bed

A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away...

Long Before Armata MBT, There was M1 TTB...

Good news from National Army and Cavalry Museum

M1 TTB is restored by the National Army and Cavalry Museum (NACM).

M1 TTB underway to restoration. (copyright: NACM)

M1 TTB Restored (Copyright: NACM)

Here is a video:
https://business.facebook.com/NationalArmorandCavalryMuseum/videos/1868798209851108/



In the   mid-80s, US Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) awarded a contract to design and develop a Test Bed for an M1 Abrams with an Unmanned 120mm Turret with the crew in the hull to General Dynamics Land Systems.

M1 Tank Test Bed (TTB) with Unmanned Turret

 The distinctive feature of this Test Bed is the Unmanned Turret with the Autoloader. 

M1 Tank Test Bed (TTB) with Unmanned Turret

The crew including the Tank Commander, Gunner and Driver are located in the hull. They are provided with a space ship style seating arrangement.

TTB Crew Layout

The tank retained the original M256 smooth bore gun albeit in an unmanned turret with the 120-mm “brassboard” autoloader transfer mechanism. This device was required to cycle ammunition from a designated storage position to a simulated gun breech and back, at 12 rounds/minute, while leaving no witness marks on the fragile combustible case after the completion of 20 loading repetitions per round.

The TTB Autoloader was a conspicuous success. The system consisted of a 44-round capacity “carousel” type mechanized magazine, located in an unmanned turret basket; a fully articulated Transfer Unit (including a rammer) positioned at the rear of the M256 120-mm cannon in the turret bustle; and a microprocessor-based, Electronic

Control Unit (ECU). 

TTB Turret with AutoLoader

AutoLoader Transfer Unit

The system was electrohydraulically powered to utilize the existing turret power supply.

And the TTB vehicle today....

TTB Vehicle Today

Sources:

• Sharoni, A., H., Bacon, L., D., "Ammunition Loading Systems for Future Tanks", Armor, March-April, 1995
• http://infoglaz.ru/?p=47169
• http://btvt.narod.ru/3/blok3/blok3.htm

Bradley Demonstrated with 30mm Unmanned Turret

Are the Bradleys in for Upgunning?

Bradley with Kongsberg Remote Turret demonstrated in Fort Benning

A Bradley Fighting Vehicle mounted with an XM813 30-mm weapon system fires rounds and hits a downed helicopter from more than 1,000 meters away during a demonstration for the XM813 Sept. 10 at Fort Benning's Digital Multi-Purpose Range Complex. (Photo Credit: Markeith Horace)tion

US Army RDECOM (Army Research Institute) has been working on an initiative for researching advanced lethality and accuracy for medium caliber weapon systems. 

The subject of the initiative concentrates on the XM813 30mm cannon. XM813 is a derivative of the Mk44 chaingun from  ATK. XM813 can be described as the Stretch Mk44 with dual recoil mechanisms, closed bolt operation for first round select, linkless feed, integral mount and air burst munition capability.

Add caption

XM813 30mm ChainGun with Dual Buffers and Integral Mount

On September 10th, Capabilities and Development Integration Directorate organized an activity to demonstrate XM813's capabilities, integrated on the Kongsberg  MCT-30  Remote Turret.

The same turret has been demonstrated on Stryker 8x8 sometime ago as described in this  blog.

For the demonstration, the XM813 mounted Bradley Fighting Vehicle fired a series of three engagements at approximately 1,400 to 1,500 meters from the target.

Looking at the ARDEC effort and this demonstration, some remarks I want emphasize:

• Is the US Army seriously evaluating upgunning Bradley?
• The caliber seems to be the 30mm, not larger.
• Looking at Kongsberg's marketing in US and the demonstrations, is the unmanned turret a serious candidate instead of the conventional 2-Men turret?

UDES XX20 TANK DESTROYER

Blast from the Past:

UDES XX20

Light Tank

In the beginning of 80's, Swedish Defence Materiel Administration - FMV's Research Group for Direct Fire Combat Vehicles (UDES) began a research/prototype effort for an Articulated Tank Destroyer Light Tank (Thank you Svesen!).

The task of UDES was to collect, process, coordinate and present  feasibility studies in the field of combat vehicle systems.

The articulated design allows two separate armored hulls connected with shafts. The front hull houses the 3 crew members and the unmanned 120mm turret.

The rear hull contains the ammunition for the main gun, fuel and powerpack.

The main gun is a 44 caliber Rheinmetall smoothbore 120mm with a Bofors muzzle brake for low recoil.

Engine was a Detroit Diesel with 600HP

The mobility trials showed that 20 tons combat weight is not good for mobility in soft terrain conditions for an articulated vehicle.

References:

• http://www.ointres.se/udes.htm
• http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?13279-The-never-realized-supertanks
• http://strangernn.livejournal.com/860041.html
• http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,935.0.html