A magyar haderő lehetséges fejlesztési irányai

  • Ha nem vagy kibékülve az alapértelmezettnek beállított sötét sablonnal, akkor a korábbi ígéretnek megfelelően bármikor átválthatsz a korábbi világos színekkel dolgozó kinézetre.

    Ehhez görgess a lap aljára és a baloldalon keresd a HTKA Dark feliratú gombot. Kattints rá, majd a megnyíló ablakban válaszd a HTKA Light lehetőséget. Választásod a böngésződ elmenti cookie-ba, így amikor legközelebb érkezel ezt a műveletsort nem kell megismételned.

megazez

Well-Known Member
2018. július 22.
4 514
8 736
113
Most meg Hirtenbergert vásárolunk, hogy legyen aknavetőnk 10 lövés/perc tűzgyorsasággal...
(Félreértés ne essék, örülök, csak lássuk az elkövetett bűnöket......)
Nem volt ez olyan régen, a bűnösök még köztünk járnak.
Mivel a gyártási jogok nálunk vannak még (?), szerintem ha nagyon akarnánk akkor elő tudnánk venni és áttervezhetnénk nato 81mm-re, hova tovább, akár modernizálhatnánk rajta.
 

tacticool

Well-Known Member
2015. január 12.
515
1 073
93
Miért, ez már a végleges? Sztem ott sem tart, ahol a Lynx!!

Igaz, de ezzel a kialakitással legalább épült pár protó, a másikról csak számitógépes grafika készűlt.

Szerintem kevered az RG41-el


Nem. Lementettem a képet gépre anno. Egy elég rossz minőségű, kis kép, ha jól emlékszem, valószínűleg valami pdf-ből vághatták ki. Laptopon most nincs nálam, majd jövő hét közepe felé felőltöm a Mbombe topicba.
 
  • Tetszik
Reactions: Negan

SilvioD

Well-Known Member
2018. december 23.
9 503
27 097
113
Szóval végleges az M240 és 249 + a 6+3fő raj?


Úgy látom 4 év kellett neki, de elkezdett gerjedni a téma. Lassan mindenhol belefutok vmilyen Honvédséghez kapcsolódó hírbe. Ha vmikor, a következő 1 évben lehet feltölteni a létszámot.

Már megérkezett pár vas, továbbiak is várhatóak idén, plusz sztem hadiipari bejelentésekből és haditechnikai beszerzésekből is sűrű lesz az év vége.

Kicsit kezd pozitivba fordulni a sereg megítélése. Ha most odadobnák arányában az orvosi bérrendezés felét, akkor sztem a létszám közép távon pipa lenne.

Pénzkérdés. De ha muszáj felvennünk ezt a közös uniós hitelt, nem tudunk belőle kibújni, és marad a szabad felhasználás, én a nagy részét bérrendezésre költeném. Egy része úgyis visszajön adóban meg fogyasztásban, a többi pozitív hozadékát is bekönyvelheti a kormány és igazából semmit sem kell tennie, csak ezeket az életpályamodelleket mellérakni.
 

Fennek

Well-Known Member
2010. május 8.
7 314
23 951
113
Szóval végleges az M240 és 249 + a 6+3fő raj?
A terrex 12 főt tud szállítani. Az pont 2 raj :)

De ha muszáj felvennünk ezt a közös uniós hitelt,
Felvenni nem muszáj. Résztvenni benne muszáj. Vagyis garanciát vállalni másokért, megnövekedett befizetést vállalni és mivel osztatlan ezért kibújni sem lehet később alóla. Értsd lehetetlen kilépni az EUból, főleg, hogy ez sosem jár le. Örökös adósrabszolgaság.
 

tacticool

Well-Known Member
2015. január 12.
515
1 073
93
Terrex 3-ról van itt pár szösszenet, hogy mibel maradt alul a Boxerrel és az AMV-vel szemben. (Valaki csinalhatna Terrex topicot :D )

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/07/land-400-phase-2-and-3-contenders-update.html
The Sentinel II has been a mysterium for quite a while, but ST Kinetics and Israeli company Elbit Systems have showcased their vehicle solution to the public for the first time. It is based on the current Terrex 3 vehiclee from ST Kinetics, but numerous technologies and components from Elbit and it's partners have been utilized. Frankly, due to the Terrex 3 being originally designed for high performance on water during amphibious operation, which are not possible with the heavier Sentinel II. The Sentinel II is fitted with the MT 30 (Manned Turret 30) from Elbit. This turret can be used in either manned or unmanned configuration and is equipped with a 30 mm Bushmaster II chain gun, a co-axial machine gun and a pop-out dual-launcher for Spike ATGMs. Like all other candidates, the vehicle is fitted with a digitial fire control system and stabilized gun to enable accurate firing on the move. The commander is provided with Elbit's COAPS (Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight), which includes a thermal imager, a CCD camera and a laser rangefinder. The gunner is provided with a similar set of optronics.Two banks of four smoke grenade dischargers are mounted on either side of the main gun.
Ontop of the turret two launchers of the new Iron Fist LC (Light Configuration) from IMI. This active protection system (APS) was first presented at Eurosatory 2016 and is a scaled down version of IMI's already existing Iron Fist APS. It launches a high explosive (HE) grenade onto an incoming threat that has been spotted by the radar. While the original version of Iron Fist has some anti-APFSDS capability (when the HE warhead fuzes at the right time, it can cause the APFSDS to tilt), the light configuration uses smaller warheads that are most likely inable to affect APFSDS. With only four interceptors ready for defeating RPGs and ATGMs, the Iron Fist LC is not suited for longer engagements, but is a useful asset in assymetrical warfare.
At the front and the rear of the turret a total of four laser warners are installed. These can detect when the vehicle is lazed by a rangefinder or beam-riding missile and may be connected to the APS or the smoke grenade dischargers.
A camera system located at the hull provides 360° close-range vision of the near terrain. The implementation is quite reminiscent of Rheinmetall's SAS 360° system, which has been installed on the Boxer CRV and other vehicles such as the Advanced Technology Demonstrator tank. It consists of three sets of each three cameras, that are set at different angles. On the rear there are only two cameras, while a further camera is located at the frontal hull - these cameras are possibly meant for the driver only.
Like the LAV(CRV) the Sentinel II fails to meet the original Australian requirements for ballistic protection. It only reaches STANAG 4569 level 4, depsite being the second-heaviest candidate for the phase 2 of the LAND 400 program. This is the result of the huge overall dimensions of the Terrex 3 hull, on which the Sentinel II is based. In fact the Sentinel II is the widest and tallest
While it is possible to boost the protection level to the levels protect against 25 mm and 30 mm ammunitions, this is only possible at certain, limited areas and not along the whole frontal arc like required by STANAG 4569. Furthermore this requires to reconfigure the turret into an unmanned configurations and reduce it's armor protection to STANAG 4569 level 2 only - which means being vulnerable to 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP ammunition or equivalent and larger calibers. A designated marksman rifle or battle rifle would be enought to penetrate the armor and potentially knocking out the Sentinel II's weapon systems by damaging the fire control system, ammunition feed system or turret drives. Due to being designed as a manned turret, the MT 30 is not optimized for unmanned operations and wastes a lot of space and thus valuable weight, that could have been used for increasing the protection.
Overall the Sentinel II has three major drawbacks. The lackluster armor protection does not manage to meet the Australian requirements. Also the missile launcher is not decoupled, so that vibrations will be passed onto the missiles. On the long term this will cause issues as the missile can be damaged or rendered completely used in a not decoupled launcher, so the Spike ATGMs in Eblit's MT 30 turret would need to be stored at other places and only be fitted into the launcher before going to battle/on a mission.
The biggest problem of the Sentinel II is that it seem to completely fail the military off the shelf of the Australian Army. It seems to be an agglomeration of unproven and new parts: the hull is taken from the new Terrex 3, which is still unproven and not in service with any nation. The turret is a new design that has yet to be used on a series produced vehicle. Even the large version of the Iron Fist APS has yet to be fielded on a tank or any other type of vehicle - the brand new Iron Fist LC version is even more of a risk. Arguably the only proven systems are the laser warners, the COAPS sights (which have been chosen for the Argentinian TAM upgrade), the smoke grenade launchers and the Bushmaster chain gun.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/08/land-400-updates-and-thoughts.html
The Sentinel II was also rejected, despite being the second heaviest option after the Boxer CRV. It consisted of a MT30 turret mounted ontop of a Terrex 3, which itself is a Terrex 2 with increased payload. The Terrex 3 chassis from ST Kinetics and the MT30 turret from Elbit Systems have revealed a number of unique and common shortcomings. Most importantly they are completely unproven at the time of the Australian down-selection, but it also suffers from relatively low protection (not being better armored than the five tonnes lighter Patria AMV with 35 mm gun turret). While the hull's armor can be improved by converting the turret into an unmanned configuration (with reduced protection), it still fails to meet the original LAND 400 Phase 2 requirements for protection. The supposedly poor reception of the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret also might imply a general dislike of unmanned turrets. This would mean that the Sentinel II was restricted to STANAG 4569 level 4 protection at best. The huge physical size of the Sentinel II, a result of it's Terrex-2 ancesty, meant that more surface needs to be armored, hence the gained protection per added is a bit smaller than on some of the other contenders.
The Sentinel II was meant to be an high-end offering, just like the Boxer CRV. The LAV (CRV) and AMV 35 CRV appear to be more budget oriented offerings, lacking some of the more advanced components for a lower price. Australia's choice of the AMV and Boxer seems to combine the better high-end vehicle with the better budget oriented vehicle, so that the changes to the budget still while deliver a good vehicle; if only the two bidders with the more expensive vehicles had been shortlisted, budget cuts could result in the end of the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. This way however, the most capable vehicle options remain open.
Aside of the aforementioned protection, the Sentinel II suffers from a number of minor and major drawbacks compared to the Boxer CRV, which is why it shouldn't be considerred the better high-end offer. The Sentinel II has no RWS options integrated into the vehicle. It also has only a non-dampened launcher for the Spike ATGMs. A non-dampened launcher does not stop the vibrations of the vehicle from being transported onto the missiles. Such vibrations can damage the the internal guidance electronics and thus prevent longer storage of the missiles in the launcher. Instead the missiles can only be loaden before a mission or during a mission.
A further issue might be the Iron Fist LC's launcher configuration. The Iron Fist Light Configuration (LC) active protection system is located ontop of the turret and hence increases overall vehicle height, reducing the ability to travel through tunnels and under bridges. This apparently has been a concern for the LAND 400 program, at least Rheinmetall made sure that the commander's sight could be retracted and the RWS folded down, so that the vehicle height when traveling is barely affected by these components. A bigger drawback of Iron Fist LC is however the amount of ready-to-fire countermeasures and launchers. The system has only two launchers, each having two barrels for countermeasures. This means the APS can engage at most two threats at the same time (a simple solution for insurgents and soldiers would be to overpower the APS by attacking with three RPGs or ATGMs at the same time) and has to be reloaden after four engaged RPGs/ATGMs. While at least some versions of Rheinmetall's ADS can defeat EFPs, Iron Fist LC is incapable of doing so.
 

Terminator

Well-Known Member
2010. április 19.
15 908
21 924
113
Ha tényleg a Bronco lesz, akkor nem akarlak elkeseríteni, de ott akár 100+-os nagyságrend is szóba jöHET. Különösen, ha mindkét dandár Lynxet kap.
Persze lehet egy csomó funkciót NMS-re, meg Jelcinre passzolni, meg Lynxre is, de utóbbi esetén kérdéses a pénzügyi "megéri-e" faktor.
Ezen kívül a szentesiek is kaphatnak belőle. Nekik kimondottan alkalmas jármű lehet, mivel szerintem alkalmasabb, mint a jelenlegi BTR-jeik.

Úgy tűnik a BV206 nagyon népszerű volt, mert kb. 26 országban rendszeresítették. Gondoltam a 40 éves technikát sokan lecserélték már valami hasonlóra... de az elmúlt 20 évben csak az rendszeresített ilyen típusú új járművet akinek tengerészete, hegye, sok havas síksága vagy sivataga van. Vagy nincs már rá máshol igény, vagy a BV206 igen megbízható és tartós konstrukció lett és nem kell lecserélni. Sok került kivonás után civil kézbe.
 
  • Tetszik
Reactions: blogen and tonyo

pöcshuszár

Well-Known Member
2019. március 21.
9 457
10 955
113
Terrex 3-ról van itt pár szösszenet, hogy mibel maradt alul a Boxerrel és az AMV-vel szemben. (Valaki csinalhatna Terrex topicot :D )

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/07/land-400-phase-2-and-3-contenders-update.html
The Sentinel II has been a mysterium for quite a while, but ST Kinetics and Israeli company Elbit Systems have showcased their vehicle solution to the public for the first time. It is based on the current Terrex 3 vehiclee from ST Kinetics, but numerous technologies and components from Elbit and it's partners have been utilized. Frankly, due to the Terrex 3 being originally designed for high performance on water during amphibious operation, which are not possible with the heavier Sentinel II. The Sentinel II is fitted with the MT 30 (Manned Turret 30) from Elbit. This turret can be used in either manned or unmanned configuration and is equipped with a 30 mm Bushmaster II chain gun, a co-axial machine gun and a pop-out dual-launcher for Spike ATGMs. Like all other candidates, the vehicle is fitted with a digitial fire control system and stabilized gun to enable accurate firing on the move. The commander is provided with Elbit's COAPS (Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight), which includes a thermal imager, a CCD camera and a laser rangefinder. The gunner is provided with a similar set of optronics.Two banks of four smoke grenade dischargers are mounted on either side of the main gun.
Ontop of the turret two launchers of the new Iron Fist LC (Light Configuration) from IMI. This active protection system (APS) was first presented at Eurosatory 2016 and is a scaled down version of IMI's already existing Iron Fist APS. It launches a high explosive (HE) grenade onto an incoming threat that has been spotted by the radar. While the original version of Iron Fist has some anti-APFSDS capability (when the HE warhead fuzes at the right time, it can cause the APFSDS to tilt), the light configuration uses smaller warheads that are most likely inable to affect APFSDS. With only four interceptors ready for defeating RPGs and ATGMs, the Iron Fist LC is not suited for longer engagements, but is a useful asset in assymetrical warfare.
At the front and the rear of the turret a total of four laser warners are installed. These can detect when the vehicle is lazed by a rangefinder or beam-riding missile and may be connected to the APS or the smoke grenade dischargers.
A camera system located at the hull provides 360° close-range vision of the near terrain. The implementation is quite reminiscent of Rheinmetall's SAS 360° system, which has been installed on the Boxer CRV and other vehicles such as the Advanced Technology Demonstrator tank. It consists of three sets of each three cameras, that are set at different angles. On the rear there are only two cameras, while a further camera is located at the frontal hull - these cameras are possibly meant for the driver only.
Like the LAV(CRV) the Sentinel II fails to meet the original Australian requirements for ballistic protection. It only reaches STANAG 4569 level 4, depsite being the second-heaviest candidate for the phase 2 of the LAND 400 program. This is the result of the huge overall dimensions of the Terrex 3 hull, on which the Sentinel II is based. In fact the Sentinel II is the widest and tallest
While it is possible to boost the protection level to the levels protect against 25 mm and 30 mm ammunitions, this is only possible at certain, limited areas and not along the whole frontal arc like required by STANAG 4569. Furthermore this requires to reconfigure the turret into an unmanned configurations and reduce it's armor protection to STANAG 4569 level 2 only - which means being vulnerable to 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP ammunition or equivalent and larger calibers. A designated marksman rifle or battle rifle would be enought to penetrate the armor and potentially knocking out the Sentinel II's weapon systems by damaging the fire control system, ammunition feed system or turret drives. Due to being designed as a manned turret, the MT 30 is not optimized for unmanned operations and wastes a lot of space and thus valuable weight, that could have been used for increasing the protection.
Overall the Sentinel II has three major drawbacks. The lackluster armor protection does not manage to meet the Australian requirements. Also the missile launcher is not decoupled, so that vibrations will be passed onto the missiles. On the long term this will cause issues as the missile can be damaged or rendered completely used in a not decoupled launcher, so the Spike ATGMs in Eblit's MT 30 turret would need to be stored at other places and only be fitted into the launcher before going to battle/on a mission.
The biggest problem of the Sentinel II is that it seem to completely fail the military off the shelf of the Australian Army. It seems to be an agglomeration of unproven and new parts: the hull is taken from the new Terrex 3, which is still unproven and not in service with any nation. The turret is a new design that has yet to be used on a series produced vehicle. Even the large version of the Iron Fist APS has yet to be fielded on a tank or any other type of vehicle - the brand new Iron Fist LC version is even more of a risk. Arguably the only proven systems are the laser warners, the COAPS sights (which have been chosen for the Argentinian TAM upgrade), the smoke grenade launchers and the Bushmaster chain gun.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/08/land-400-updates-and-thoughts.html
The Sentinel II was also rejected, despite being the second heaviest option after the Boxer CRV. It consisted of a MT30 turret mounted ontop of a Terrex 3, which itself is a Terrex 2 with increased payload. The Terrex 3 chassis from ST Kinetics and the MT30 turret from Elbit Systems have revealed a number of unique and common shortcomings. Most importantly they are completely unproven at the time of the Australian down-selection, but it also suffers from relatively low protection (not being better armored than the five tonnes lighter Patria AMV with 35 mm gun turret). While the hull's armor can be improved by converting the turret into an unmanned configuration (with reduced protection), it still fails to meet the original LAND 400 Phase 2 requirements for protection. The supposedly poor reception of the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret also might imply a general dislike of unmanned turrets. This would mean that the Sentinel II was restricted to STANAG 4569 level 4 protection at best. The huge physical size of the Sentinel II, a result of it's Terrex-2 ancesty, meant that more surface needs to be armored, hence the gained protection per added is a bit smaller than on some of the other contenders.
The Sentinel II was meant to be an high-end offering, just like the Boxer CRV. The LAV (CRV) and AMV 35 CRV appear to be more budget oriented offerings, lacking some of the more advanced components for a lower price. Australia's choice of the AMV and Boxer seems to combine the better high-end vehicle with the better budget oriented vehicle, so that the changes to the budget still while deliver a good vehicle; if only the two bidders with the more expensive vehicles had been shortlisted, budget cuts could result in the end of the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. This way however, the most capable vehicle options remain open.
Aside of the aforementioned protection, the Sentinel II suffers from a number of minor and major drawbacks compared to the Boxer CRV, which is why it shouldn't be considerred the better high-end offer. The Sentinel II has no RWS options integrated into the vehicle. It also has only a non-dampened launcher for the Spike ATGMs. A non-dampened launcher does not stop the vibrations of the vehicle from being transported onto the missiles. Such vibrations can damage the the internal guidance electronics and thus prevent longer storage of the missiles in the launcher. Instead the missiles can only be loaden before a mission or during a mission.
A further issue might be the Iron Fist LC's launcher configuration. The Iron Fist Light Configuration (LC) active protection system is located ontop of the turret and hence increases overall vehicle height, reducing the ability to travel through tunnels and under bridges. This apparently has been a concern for the LAND 400 program, at least Rheinmetall made sure that the commander's sight could be retracted and the RWS folded down, so that the vehicle height when traveling is barely affected by these components. A bigger drawback of Iron Fist LC is however the amount of ready-to-fire countermeasures and launchers. The system has only two launchers, each having two barrels for countermeasures. This means the APS can engage at most two threats at the same time (a simple solution for insurgents and soldiers would be to overpower the APS by attacking with three RPGs or ATGMs at the same time) and has to be reloaden after four engaged RPGs/ATGMs. While at least some versions of Rheinmetall's ADS can defeat EFPs, Iron Fist LC is incapable of doing so.
Érdekes, hogy a MT30 pont ezek alapján a bírálatok alapján tervezték át, és került fel a Redbackre.
Kíváncsi leszek, hogy ezek után is bele fognak-e tudni kötni.... :cool:
 

Galthran

Well-Known Member
2020. január 31.
1 024
3 429
113
Mivel a gyártási jogok nálunk vannak még (?), szerintem ha nagyon akarnánk akkor elő tudnánk venni és áttervezhetnénk nato 81mm-re, hova tovább, akár modernizálhatnánk rajta.
1998-ban az aknavető 81 mm-es NATO-űrméretű gránátra alakított változatának felhasználásával kifejlesztettek egy Mercedes-Unimog 2500H alvázra épített önjáró, légi szállításra alkalmas változatot, de ennek a rendszeresítésére sem került sor.

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasziljok
 
  • Tetszik
Reactions: megazez

L.O.B

Well-Known Member
2020. július 8.
359
846
93
It consists of three sets of each three cameras, that are set at different angles. On the rear there are only two cameras, while a further camera is located at the frontal hull - these cameras are possibly meant for the driver only.
Like the LAV(CRV) the Sentinel II fails to meet the original Australian requirements for ballistic protection. It only reaches STANAG 4569 level 4, depsite being the second-heaviest candidate for the phase 2 of the LAND 400 program. This is the result of the huge overall dimensions of the Terrex 3 hull, on which the Sentinel II is based. In fact the Sentinel II is the widest and tallest
While it is possible to boost the protection level to the levels protect against 25 mm and 30 mm ammunitions, this is only possible at certain, limited areas and not along the whole frontal arc like required by STANAG 4569. Furthermore this requires to reconfigure the turret into an unmanned configurations and reduce it's armor protection to STANAG 4569 level 2 only - which means being vulnerable to 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP ammunition or equivalent and larger calibers. A designated marksman rifle or battle rifle would be enough to penetrate the armor and potentially knocking out the Sentinel II's weapon systems by damaging the fire control system, ammunition feed system or turret drives. Due to being designed as a manned turret, the MT 30 is not optimized for unmanned operations and wastes a lot of space and thus valuable weight, that could have been used for increasing the protection.
Overall the Sentinel II has three major drawbacks. The lackluster armor protection does not manage to meet the Australian requirements.


Vagyis minden képességnövelés hatalmas kompromisszumokat hoz magával, annyira hogy a passzív védettség növelése már a torony/fegyverzet súlyának csökkentését vonja maga után azon felül hogy a teljes körű passzív védelem növelése lehetetlen volt a 30mm-es torony megtartásával ! Nem véletlen hogy a sok fajta fegyverzet ajánlása ellenére eddig a legütősebb fegyver amit felraktak rá az a 30mm-es gépágyú

Ez tényleg csak egy úszásra képtelen APC.nek lenne jó egy halom rápakolt páncélzattal és max a 40mm-es autómata gránátvetővel(de ez is lehet még túl nehéz)

S amennyiben a Terrexel kacérkodik a magyar diplomácia akkor ez tényleg az amit Bloggen írt

Óvatosan figyelmeztetjük a német partnereinket a saját ipari lobbijukon keresztül, hogy Magyarországnak és Lengyelországnak is vannak érdekei és ha ezek nem érvényesülnek, akkor más lehetőségeink is vannak, mint a vezető EU tagállamokkal való együttműködés! Nem véletlen, hogy Szijjártó tett bejelentést és nem Maróth vagy Benkő, ez most diplomácia és a Zrínyi-program!
 

SilvioD

Well-Known Member
2018. december 23.
9 503
27 097
113
Dynamit Nobel Defence produziert zukünftig auch in Ungarn
https://soldat-und-technik.de/2020/...defence-produziert-zukuenftig-auch-in-ungarn/
Találgatnak. A BTR csere már ott is közszájon forog.

"Jelenleg nem tudni, hogy a Magyarországon gyártott reaktív páncélt a nemrég megrendelt Leopard 2 A7 + fő harckocsi, a Lynx KF41 páncélos szállító vagy a közeljövőben tervezett BTR-80 utódjárművek számára szánják-e."