My research

Armen_Lozone · May 20, 2024, 6:14pm

Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz

The German Armata

History and introduction

In the late 1980s the prospect of the next generation of main battle tanks and their development was at a distinctive high. Many new technologies were under trials as were a lot of theories regarding the best methodology to accomplish the desginated tasks that a main battle tank would be designed for.

Among these technologies and theories was a very promising design for the unmanned turret. By re-locating the crew and critical components into the hull and keeping only the essentials in the turret, the armour, and hence, weight could be reduced by a drastic amount from it and instead be used to strengthen the unified crew compartment in the hull.

This concept had been trialled for the Leopard 3 program on the Marder VTS-1 test bed.

Un distorted pic but greyscale

Another concept that had been under trials while the EGS was in its design phase is the two man crew design. As is seen on the VT-2000 test vehicle which saw use of modified MBT hulls of a leopard 1:

And leopard 2:

These were meant to test the feasibility of such a crew arrangement, and seeing as the concept was pursued further, it can be reasonably deduced that it proved possible for a modern military.

The EGS or Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz (Experimental Hull for Total/Comprehensive Protection) was a testbed demonstrator for such a concept. While it may look like a modified Leopard 2 hull, it is in fact a brand new design.

Maschinenbau Kiel GmbH (MAK) and Krauss Maffei Wehrtechnik (KMW) started work on the prototype’s development in 1989 but the design work had already been underway for years before that. Hundreds and thousands of calculations and simulations had been performed to arrive at the design of the EGS. The platform was designed to not only perform better than any in service vehicle in terms of protection but also to have better structural integrity, Infrared signature management and suppression as well as radar camouflage. It used a new engine muffler system that cooled the exhaust before it was ejected out of the vehicle.

Image showing the exhaust muffler system which reduced the IR signature

This system was later also trialled on a Leopard 2 chassis:

Spoiler

A full 4 years after the start, the EGS platform was halfway complete. The hull was ready. Soon afterwards, factory trials took place including tests of the aforementioned IR and radar signatures.

In 1995 to 96, the hull was handed over to WTD-41 for driving dynamics evaluation. If we take a look at the EGS prototype, the large roadwheels (a whopping 810mms in diameter) should be among the striking features. This allowed the EGS to demonstrate exceptional driving performance and crew ergonomics. The prototype also utilised rotary vane shock absorbers of 8-10kw dampening power giving it a great hull stabilisation and dampening capability with respect to the decoupled running gear.

The Internals

The EGS had a standard Leopard 2 style rear mounted engine and transmission in a U-configuration. The turret was center mounted and the crew of 2 would sit right in front of the turret well, but behind a wall of thick armour exceeding the 900mm of LOS thickness on the T-14 Armata. As depicted in the following graphics, the EGS crew compartment would have presented a extremely small profile from the front. All heated housing sections were ventilated to reduce the IR signature even further.

The side profile was not much larger:

The armour itself was a mixture of composites, spaced and rolled homogenous armour with the configuration even using MEXAS modular armour by IBD Deisenroth engineering.

Using the dimensions of the vehicle, I have calculated LOS thicknesses to be the following:

As you can see… it would be near immune to everything from the front and a large sector of the sides as well.

All that alongside a top mounted unmanned cannon with autoloader means that the crew would be protected from all manner of threats.

EGS was not part of the NGP program.
KMW, MAK and Rheinmetall and Wegmann all participated in the ngp program which did not yeild any physical hardware during its timeline.

EGS in game

In WT, the EGS would fulfill a similar role to the Object 299, and face off against it at a similar BR while the T-14 armata would face off against the later generation of leopard 2A8/X and KF-51 Panthers.

Why not mention NGP?

For that, I shall (hopefully) make a secondary post below this one. Contrary to common online belief, the EGS is not a part of the NGP program, although probably very much related and intertwined.

Specifications

Crew: 2 (interchangable roles)
Weight: ESTIMATED 50-62 tons
Engine: MTU 883 (U-configuration)
Power: 1100kw
Trasmission: RENK HSWL 295 TM
Suspension: Torsion bar
Top speed: 72kmph
Driving range: circa 450-500km
Planned armament: 120mm L/44 or L/55 or the (then in development) Rhm 140mm or even a ETC 120mm

Dimensions

Overall Length: 8670 mm
Width over Tracks: 3500 mm
Overall Width: 3980 mm
Overall Height: 2710 mm
Ground Clearance: 500 mm

Source

Visual references

Image Sources

Sources

Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien" by Rolf Hilmes

ARMOR Magazine January-February 2001
Tankograd Leopard 2 Entwicklung und Einsatz in der Bundeswehr
Tankograd Leopard 2 Gesamtwerk
Tankograd Leopard 2 A5 Part 1 & 2
Tankograd Leopard 2 A6

Armen_Lozone · May 20, 2024, 7:14pm

VTS-1

Versuchsträger Marder VTS-1

VTS-1 seems to have been the testbed for an externally mounted gun that would have gone onwards in the trials for the leopard 3 program.

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/L2RG/yVCtDzp13/tanks/Germany/Kpz3%2C%20Leo3%2C%20etc/2%20KPZ-3%20Ger%20only

Armen_Lozone · May 20, 2024, 8:10pm

Leopard 2 SVT

The new armament also caused some side effects. The balance changed and higher recoil energy had to be absorbed. Using a Schießversuchträger (SVT) (Eng: Shooting trial vehicle), the armament was tested and all the adjustments were made so the gun was ready to be installed into new Leopard 2s when being upgraded to the new standard.

The SVT is mentioned in the Tankograd Leopard 2, Entwicklung und Einsatz in der Bundeswehr book by Mr. Frank Lobitz. It is not mentioned in any other source. One photo is known to exist showing the potential SVT with the turret modified with weight plates, due to the fact the add-on armor was under development at the time.

Armen_Lozone · May 20, 2024, 8:43pm

Pakistani Vehicles

Sea Fury FB.60

http://www.pafsqk.yolasite.com/fury.php
Aviation Historian 1

F-6P

Between 1965–1980, the PAF received 260 F-6 fighters, which went on to serve with 10 PAF squadrons at various times. During their service, Pakistani F-6s also underwent 140 modifications at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex to improve it’s capabilities in the interceptor and close air support roles. These modifications included installation of Martin-Baker ejection seats, gun cameras, western avionics, AIM-9B/J/P missiles, French 68mm SNEB rockets, underbelly gondola-style fuel tanks and a special ground power unit, to quickly start the engines and shorten scramble time.

Primary weapon: 3 x NR-30 cannons
Secondary weapon: 2 x Aim-9P sidewinder (smokeless)

Faithful Warrior – Second To None
Discord

F-7PG

might have MAWS

Discord

F-104A

The Pakistani F-104As were fitted with more powerful J-79-11A engines.

RB-57F

The replacement of the Wright J65 turbojets with Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-11 turbofan engines. The TF33s gave the aircraft more than double the thrust of the B model. The RB-57F was also fitted with two detachable Pratt & Whitney J60-P-9 turbojets mounted in pods attached to the wings outboard of the main engines. These auxiliary engines were air-started and only for use at altitude in flight. At altitudes above 40,000 feet (12,000 m), the J60s generated about 3,300 pounds-force (15 kN) of thrust each and increased the maximum altitude of the RB-57F by 2,000–3,000 feet (610–910 m)

EC AS550 C3

https://youtu.be/deSpPu78bt0

SPADA 2000 Plus

Discord

Pakistan SPADA 2000 system:
Target intercept Range: 20-25km
Guidance method: SARH
Missiles ready to launch: 6

Al Zarrar Prototype 1

MAIN BATTLE TANKS IN ASIA | Asian Defence News Articles | Defence Review Asia

Al Zarrar III

MAIN BATTLE TANKS IN ASIA | Asian Defence News Articles | Defence Review Asia

https://depo.gov.pk/download/catalogue/public/HIT.pdf
ffffffforum.warthunder.com/t/al-zarrar-mbt-pakistan/45324

Al Khalid I MAX

Al Khalid II

MAIN BATTLE TANKS IN ASIA | Asian Defence News Articles | Defence Review Asia

An Al-Khalid II is in early developmental stages as well, with redesigned turret, modular armour and 1,500hp power pack. Approximately 50 Chinese engineers are now in Pakistan working with HIT on various projects. The Al-Khalid is a license-built version of the Chinese MBT-2000, but HIT has been annoyed that China is marketing it without Pakistani permission. Thus, HIT signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Norinco at IDEAS 2012 in Karachi on 8 November regarding Al-Khalid exports. This MoU arranges for joint marketing, profit sharing and ongoing technology transfer. A HIT spokesman said potential Al-Khalid export markets are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Middle East. However, the company acknowledged sales in a competitive international arena are a very difficult prospect.

VT-4/Al Haider style Turret face ERA blocks, 6TD-III 1500hp engine, (assumed → ) new ammo, better ERA coverage on turret roof and UFP.

Researching all Al-Khalid variants ever made
KMDB - Tank Power Pack with 6TD-2 Engine
Overview: Al-Khalid 2 main battle tank program - Quwa
Discord

Armen_Lozone · May 21, 2024, 5:06pm

German Vehicles

Jagdtiger Gasturbine

Gas Turbine Jagdtiger - The Tank Museum

Jagdpanther 88mm(with 3-round ready rack/ram-loader mechanism)

Tiger II Stabiliser Modification

https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/cca280d2-8b48-49f8-aa86-17c47b77b1ed

M-48 mit Leopard 2 turm

ладно с этим разобрались, а это что за тевтонский гений сделал…

Leopard 2 140 (T19)

German prototype Leopard 2 turret on a Leopard 1 hull. The Versuchsträger Mit Turm T19. From what I have been able to find it was a modified 2AV turret used as a testbed for a bustle auto loader. The 120mm gun is missing the thermal sleeve and fume extractor.

Running model of the test vehicle with the T 19 (Leopard 2 AV) turret, in which the Rheinmetall / Wegmann & Co automatic loader was installed for dynamic testing in 1983.

KWS I focused on the installation of a 120mm L/55 gun and the use of new, advanced ammunition (with muzzle velocity of up to 1800 m/s)
KWS II focused on additional armour (both turret and hull), crew protection systems and advanced battlefield electronics
KWS III focused on the then-developed 140mm gun to replace the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore and the integration of the IFIS system from the Leopard 2 IVT phase

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiSgayft6WLAxVhcGwGHQAZAPIQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.warthunder.com%2Ft%2Fhigh-caliber-projects-discussion-and-implementation%2F11001&usg=AOvVaw1yf69IV5UdIa2s6krwXNCg&opi=89978449
(also check post 33 by dragoon)
https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1527-the-leopard-2-thread/page/42/
СТАЛЬ И ОГОНЬ: СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫЕ ТАНКИ: Из истории танкостроения ФРГ.
file:///C:/Users/DELL/Desktop/hobby%20projects/PDFs/345212317-Leopard-2-En.pdf

FVT-02

The Cold War JagdTiger

Images

Leo 3 program

many tanks have been put up for the leopard 3 title, even the KF-51 Panther, whether officially by the companies or by news outlets, calling many a tank the successor of the famed leopard 2, but as of now, no one solution has taken the name for sure. hopes lie on the MGCS for now. lets see what becomes of that, however, lets introduce a competitor who lost the title for Leopard 3.

text from post 0

The tank, which was supposed to replace the Leopard 2. The tank had two versions - VT-1-1 (photo 3-4) (with two 105mm guns) and VT-1-2 (photo 1-2) (with two 120mm guns), and the VT-1-1 had both barrels automatically loaded, while the VT-1-2 had one gun loaded manually. The tanks also differed in engine power - the VT-1-1 had a 2000 hp engine, and the VT-1-2 had a 2200 hp engine.

text from post 1

Today we will talk about completely perverted German fantasies, namely about the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks, or as they were also called “Leopard 3” (not to be confused with the future MBT). It was in the early 70s, with the MBT-70 project things somehow did not work out right away, they did not share the gun, engine and other units. But a new main battle tank was still needed. And it was very necessary, since tankers somehow did not particularly show a desire to fight on spotted cats 1 against the new-fangled Soviet T-64. All Western military personnel were shocked by the sixty-fours.

As a result, the Germans continued working on a new tank with a standard layout. But there were some particularly clever ones, like engineer Wolfgang Matos, who headed his own project for a new tank. He considered the standard layout to be obsolete and did not particularly believe in the prospects of the Leopard being developed in a neighboring project. As a result, they developed a new tank with a turretless layout. And apparently they thought then that one gun is good, but two are better. Therefore, they stuffed two guns into both prototypes, on the left and right sides of the vehicle. The guns were aimed vertically using a drive, and horizontally by turning the hull. At a range of 1.5 km, the axes of the guns intersected.

The first prototype VT1-1 was equipped with two well-known English L7 guns. Each gun was equipped with an automatic loading system, a trend of the time, and still cool today. The second prototype VT1-2 was even more terrifying: it carried two 120mm Rh 120 guns, one with automatic loading, the second with manual, because the gloomy genius was unable to make a mirror copy of the AZ. Both vehicles were equipped with a PERI R12 sight, which was borrowed from a neighboring project. When firing while standing, the vehicle showed better results compared to turret tanks. But firing on the move became a problem, although this was clear even at the sketch stage. The tank could not aim normally on the move in the horizontal plane, when firing, the vehicle rocked and skidded strongly, the trajectory of movement changed, it was difficult for the driver to control the equipment in such conditions.

In terms of mobility, everything was fine. The vehicles inherited the chassis from the KPz-70 with hydropneumatic suspension, but the hull was shortened and one support roller was removed. A 1,500-horsepower engine was used as a power plant, yes, again taken from a neighboring project. The engine was initially boosted to 2,000 hp and installed on the VT1-1. And on the VT1-2 it was boosted even more, reaching a power of 2,200 hp. The mass of the vehicle was 38-40 tons, which, combined with such powerful engines, gave an incredible 53 hp/t. Modern MBTs, and what’s more, even light tanks smoke on the sidelines. Therefore, the vehicle was very mobile.

The crew consisted of 3 people: commander, gunner and driver. The driver was located in the center at the front of the hull. Behind him were the commander and gunner, to the left of the tank’s axis. The armor was not seriously considered, the Germans still believed that “barnya nenadka!” and relied on firepower and mobility, let me remind you, 2 guns with an automatic loader and 53 horses per ton. Experimental models were made of regular steel, not armored steel, which saved weight. A real tank would have weighed 2-4 tons more. After a lull, in the 80s the project was revisited and several more GVT prototypes were made, on which the guns were moved closer to the center and the internal layout was changed, on some variants the chassis was lengthened.

From 1972 to 1976, the VT1 underwent a test cycle. During this time, they drove many kilometers, fired a lot of shots, etc. As a result, it was impossible to shoot normally on the move, the layout was strange, the neighboring project showed good results. Later, the spotted cat two was born, and the military came to the conclusion that why the hell do we need this, it is better to modernize the Leopard 2. Therefore, the Leopard 3 project was abandoned. In the 80s, they returned to the project again, tested the GVT and eventually closed the project completely and decided to improve the Leopard 2, and thank God. But the double-barreled tank was developed as a promising replacement for the Leopard 2.

text from post 2

Experimental two-gun tank VT1

In the early 1970s, the MaK (Maschinenbau Kiel) company began to consider the prospects of modern tanks on its own initiative. It was assumed that the vehicle being developed, designated VT1 (German: Versuchstrager 1 - test model), would be ready by the time its “peer” Leopard 2 began to become obsolete.

During the analysis of the existing designs, MaK analysts and engineers came to the conclusion that the existing tank layout with a rotating turret and only one gun was no longer capable of providing the necessary firepower. In addition, the success of the Swedish turretless Strv 103 tank, which managed to combine sufficient firepower (105-mm gun) with good performance, maneuverability and protection, had an effect.

True, the rigid fastening of the gun required a significantly more complicated suspension: vertical aiming was carried out by skewing the entire hull. German engineers decided to adopt the idea of a tank without a turret, but at the same time not to be clever with the aiming of the gun. At the same time, a group of engineers led by Wolfgang Matos came to the conclusion that it was necessary to install two guns on the prospective tank at once. According to the designers, it was not possible to achieve a significant increase in combat qualities by other means.

The experimental MBT-70 tank was chosen as the basis for the new experimental design. This armored vehicle was not suitable for serial production, but was attractive for use in experimental work on the VT1 topic. In accordance with the turretless layout of the future tank, the chassis was shortened, due to which instead of six road wheels per side there were only five.

The hydropneumatic suspension was modified accordingly. The MBT-70 tank’s native Continental AVCR-1100-3 diesel engine was replaced by an MB 873 Ra-500 diesel engine. The new engine could operate continuously, producing one and a half thousand horsepower, and “accelerate” to 2175 hp in a short time.

At the same time, in emergency mode, the 38-ton tank had a specific power of over 50 hp per ton of weight. This is approximately twice as high as most modern tanks. One of the reasons for the high specific power was the comparatively low weight of the structure. Given the experimental nature of the project, MaK engineers made experimental tanks not from special armor steel, but from lighter “regular” grades. In this way, about 2-4 tons of weight were saved. An armored cabin was installed on the modified chassis of the MBT-70 tank. It is noteworthy that with a comparatively large internal volume, it did not have very large dimensions. The overall height of the VT1 was slightly more than two meters, which was more than 80 centimeters less than the original MBT-70.

In 1972, the assembly of the first prototypes of the VT1-1 tank was completed. The first example was equipped with two 105-mm rifled L7 guns. Both guns had automatic loaders.

The VT1-2 tank, in turn, received 120-mm smoothbore Rh-120 guns. However, only one gun was equipped with an automatic loader. The fact is that during the development of the new tank, the designers of Maschinenbau Kiel were unable to produce a mirror version of this unit. Therefore, one gun was loaded automatically, and the second was fed shells and cartridges by the crew manually. The design of the gun mounts on the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks is interesting. On both vehicles, the guns had the ability to only aim vertically. The guns did not move horizontally. In addition, they were installed with a small convergence angle: the aiming lines intersected at a distance of 1,500 meters.

Testing of the two prototypes continued until 1976. During this time, the tanks traveled thousands of kilometers across the testing ground and fired hundreds of shots. First of all, it became clear that the VT1-1, due to its very concept, was not capable of firing more or less accurately on the move. When firing from one gun, the recoil slightly turned the tank around the vertical axis, which had to be countered by turning the entire tank. This problem was only aggravated by the lack of sighting devices for the driver.

Only the commander and gunner had Carl Zeiss PERI R12 periscope sights. Naturally, in combination with the lack of horizontal aiming of the guns, this greatly complicated firing. In addition, the design strength limitations did not allow both guns to be fired simultaneously. Thus, the only way to somehow eliminate the tank turning during firing was “prohibited” by the design itself. It is noteworthy that on the above-mentioned Swedish Strv 103 tank, aiming was carried out by the driver. For this purpose, he had a sight and controls for the hull tilt.

Sources

[poll type=regular results=always chartType=bar]

Yes
No

[/ [poll ]

VAK-191

VAK 191B

slogan

history header

Introduction

Propulsion

The propulsion was provided by a Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.193-12 swivel jet engine and two Rolls-Royce RB.162-81 lift engines. The RB.193 lift/cruise engine was a two-shaft turbofan similar to the Bristol Siddeley Pegasus of the Kestrel/Harrier. It had four rotating side nozzles, which were adjusted by a Plessey pneumatic motor via cardan shafts and chains over a swivel range of 95 degrees. The air intake was optimized for cruising at Mach 0.92, but offered an additional opening for hovering and slow flight thanks to a movable front section. The two RB.162-81 lift engines were installed at a rearward incline of 12.5 degrees. In later versions, their jets were to be deflected by fuselage flaps.

Thrust and lift

The designers were convinced that this division between lift/thrust and lift engines represented the best compromise between the required take-off power and economical fuel consumption in high-speed flight. In terms of their arrangement, they offered positive ground effects, at least compared to a design with separate lift and thrust engines.

For control and stabilization in hover and transition flight, air was taken from all engines and blown out separately via a redundant pipe system at the wing tips and at the fuselage nose and tail to generate torque. The air nozzles required for this were directly connected to the rudders.

Control

The control torques in the pitch axis were further increased by modulating the thrusts of the two lift engines. In the event of a lift engine failure, the automatic flight control system would have taken over control of the remaining lift thrust and kept the aircraft in a horizontal position to enable the pilot to eject using the Martin Baker Mk 9 ejection seat in a normal flight attitude.

The pilot’s commands on the VAK 191 B were not transmitted mechanically to the rudder servo motors, but electrically, with triple redundancy using a flight controller - known today as fly-by-wire. In the event of a total failure of the electrical flight control, the rudder servo motors could still be controlled mechanically by automatically closing a clutch. The high-pressure hydraulic system worked at 4000 psi, a value that is rarely achieved even today.

Due to the requirement With regard to the range at transonic cruising speeds close to the ground, particular attention was paid during the design to ensuring that the pilot should only be exposed to a tolerable level of acceleration in gusty weather. For this purpose, wings with a high wing loading, a small aspect ratio and a relatively large leading edge sweep were chosen, which were arranged in a high position due to the central position of the swivel jet engine and had a negative V position.

To reduce the conventional landing speed and to shorten the transition distances, the wing was equipped with trailing edge camber flaps. In addition, the ailerons could be deflected downwards in the same direction. The landing gear, fitted with low-pressure tires, had brakes in the nose and main gear and nose wheel steering. A braking parachute was provided to shorten the roll-out distance during a horizontal landing.

Compared to Harrier

Previously called the FW 1262

The VAK 191 B V2 is now in the Defense Technology Study Collection in Koblenz.

Armament

The cargo area under the main engine was four meters long, 88 cm wide and 60 cm high. It was to be equipped with equipment sets pre-loaded on the ground. The early brochures of the Vereinigte Flugtechnische Werke list armament alternatives such as:

2 x 450 kg bombs plus 115 kg equipment
4 x 225 kg bombs
2 extendable rocket launchers, each with 54 x 70mm rockets.

Camera systems or on-board cannons and a 1700 l tank were also conceivable. Ultimately, however, an extensive on-board measuring and telemetry system was installed here, which made it possible to record, process, save and transmit the data generated during testing to a ground station. Of the total of 450 possible measured values, 260 could be recorded simultaneously on PCM and FM channels.

Other armament options include:

2 x Kormoran Anti ship missiles

Technical data

Manufacturer: VFW (later VFW-Fokker), Bremen
Crew: 1 on Martin-Baker ejection seat
Engine: 1 x Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.193-12 plus 2 x Rolls-Royce RB.162-81 F 08
Thrust: 1 x 45.2 kN plus 2 x 26.65 kN
Length: 14.72 m
Height: 4.30 m
Wingspan: 6.16 m
Wing area: 12.5 m2
Empty weight: 5562 kg
Max. fuel: 2100 kg
Max. take-off weight: 8507 kg
Maximum speed: 1100 km/h
Cruising speed: 740 km/h (test flights only up to 665 km/h)
Climb rate: 36 m/s
Service ceiling: 14,500 m
Range: 370 – 400 km

Images

Videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00yHhvjrJj0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q613kD_lrjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKEfdd8dhQ

Sources

Wehrtechnik 1972-09

Gepard '2' Prototype

Gepard ‘2’ Prototype

Spoiler

I believe one Gepard 1A2 was the prototype for the new sight system as can be seen below

Comparison with Gepard 1A2

Here are a two images of the standard Gepard 1A2 in comparison with the prototype. As you can see, they are not the same.

Sources

Soldat und Technik 12/1992

Jane's land-based air defence 1992

Janes Armoured Fighting Vehicle Retrofit Systems 1993-94

https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/row/weg2001.pdf
Flakpanzer Gepard upgrades | Secret Projects Forum
Gepard The History Of German Anti Aircraft Tanks (in pdfs folder)

Diehl BMP-3

Diehl BMP-3 PDU

East and West, together we da best ;)

History, introduction and testing

(history)

Technical Specifications

Crew: (3)
— Mobility —
Weight: t
Engine: MTU Diesel 8V199 Engine
Power: 720hp
Transmission: Renk Transmission HSWL 106
Top speed: kmph
Power/weight: hp/t
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

Internals

— Armament —
Main gun: 100 mm
Autoloader:
Secondary gun(s): 30mm 2A42
Elevation:
Traverse: 360°
Gun sight:
Laser range finder: Yes
Thermals: Yes
NVD: Yes

— Ammunition —

100mm
Count:
30mm
Count: (RoF: 1200)

Sources

https://www.atlantic-bg.org/files/conference/3/DLS_II.pdf

[poll type=regular results=always chartType=bar]

Yes
No

[/ [poll ]

HFK-L2

[poll type=regular results=always chartType=bar]

Yes
No

[/] [poll ]

HFK/L2 catchphrase

Back story title
Back story

Testing

HFK/L1 and L2 were tested at the Meldorf bay in Germany.

HFK/L1 was intended mainly to test the effectiveness of lateral thrust in the hypersonic region. DASA said that this form of control is strongly affected by varying aerodynamic interferences between the airflow around the missile and the exhaust gases from the lateral thrust motors. These interference effects cannot be adequately simulated in a wind tunnel, owing to a lack of similarity in the important parameters. Therefore the test missile was equipped with nine side thrusters which were ignited in a programmed sequence.

Within 0.8s, the rocket was accelerated to nearly 1,800m/s (around M5.3) by Bayern Chemie’s high-power rocket motor. The Bayern Chemie hypervelocity propulsion unit features an integrated airframe and motor structure with a diameter of 220mm a carbon/Kevlar composite case and nozzle (manufactured by Man); a single stage boost/sustain configuration with a maximum thrust of more than 200kN and a thrust ratio of about 10:1 using an optimized wagon wheel propellant grain; and a high performance aluminized composite propellant with very high burn rate.

Once maximum speed had been reached, the control sequence was activated, in which the missile was subjected to lateral accelerations of 30g for brief periods. The measured flight state variable (data) and the temperatures both on the surface of the missile and in the interior were recorded during the flight in an on-board storage device; some of the data was also transmitted to the ground station by a telemetry link. After about 1.5s of flight, the rocket was destroyed by a pyrotechnic device. The important components such as the inertial platform and the flight data recorder and telemetry unit were recovered by helicopter from the mud flats about 3km from the launch point.

DASA said that a next round of test firings will be over a distance of 12km, and represent a major challenge to the temperature stability of the materials used. Air friction means that temperatures as high as 1,200°C on the surface of the missile, and up to 400°C on the inner layer of the structure, must be reckoned with.

The focal point of the trials will be the control program for the HFK/L2 firings scheduled for November 1997, with 36 side thrusters giving a defined manoeuvre at the maximum speed of Mach 5.3. The test firing is to determine if the most important questions on the controllability of a missile under these extreme conditions can be considered answered. In that case the trials will proceed to the second and even more demanding part of the technology program. That is intended to test and verify lateral accelerations of 50g and more, using new aerodynamic control surfaces alone or in combination with side thrusters.

In order to reduce the technical risk when creating HFK/KV, BGT, together with the German companies DASA and Bayern-Chemie, is participating in the work on hypersonic demonstrator missiles HFK-L1 and HFK-L2, whose mass is about 100 kg.
The first launch of HFK-L1 was carried out in 1995 and during the launch the effectiveness of the gas-dynamic control system was tested at speeds around Mach 5. During the first launch, the missile was equipped with nine micro-solid propellant rocket engines, which were to be turned on during the flight in a predetermined sequence. During the first 0.8 s of flight, the missile reached a speed of Mach 5.3, after which the micro-solid propellant rocket engine was turned on, ensuring that the missile performed manoeuvres with overloads of up to 30 G. Analysing the results of this and a number of subsequent tests, BGT specialists came to the conclusion that to perform manoeuvres with overloads of more than 50 G, the missile must not only be equipped with a micro-solid propellant rocket engine, but also with aerodynamic control surfaces.

The second test of such a missile, HFK-L2, took place in February 2002 and during the test the missile reached a speed of M=6.5 (more than 2.1 km/s). It was noted that the required manoeuvrability indicators were achieved. (for overloads of up to 50 G)

Source for proof

Technical Specifications

Launch weight: ~100kg
Missile length: 2.5m
Missile acceleration: 2271m/s²
Missile Thrust: 200kN
Maximum speed: 8650km/h (Mach ~7)
Maximum overload: 50G
Warhead mass: unkn
Guaranteed range: 12km
Maximum range: 16-18km

The missile used a collaboration of control surfaces and side thrusters to achieve its maximum overload of 50 G.

Extra info

A Hochge schwindigkeits flugkorper (HFK) hypervelocity surface-to-air missile research programme was started in Germany in 1990, and at least two different designs have been tested. A BGT design, known as HFK/KV, was tested with eight firings up to December 2001. The missile had a length of 2.8 m, and a launch weight of 60 kg. This missile was in two stages, with the 44 kg first stage a solid propellant boost motor fitted with four folding fins that accelerated the missile up to M5inaround 1second. The boost motor assembly was then jettisoned and the unpowered second stage flew to the target. The 16 kg second stage was called a Kill Vehicle (KV), this had a length of 0.9m, and had an inertial measurement unit, a 5 kg warhead, four small control fins and an imaging IR seeker. The seeker had 32 detector elements that were scanned to provide an image, enabling the second stage to home onto the target. The imaging IR seeker was protected from the heat generated by the high speed of the missile, by an ablative nosecone, that was jettisoned 2 to 3 seconds before intercept. The HFK/KV missile design was planned to be interchangeable with existing Roland canisters and launch systems, and was expected to have a maximum range of 12 km.
A second version was designed by DASA (LFK, now part of EADS), known as HFK/L. This version was a single-stage missile, but with a solid propellant boost motor that burned for 0.8 seconds and accelerated the missile to M5.3 (1.8 km/s). The HFK/L missile was first flown in 1995, and guided flight trials continued up to February 2002. The missile had a launch weight of 100 kg and included 36 solid propellant side thrusters forward of the centre of gravity and four lattice box type control fins at the rear. The lattice control fins were similar to those used on the Russian AA-12 ‘Adder’ air-to-air missile and SS-2 1 ‘Scarab‘ short-range ballistic missile. It was reported that this missile would have active or semi-active radar guidance, although a dual-mode active radar/ imaging IR seeker was also proposed. The initial HFK/L missile had a range of 12 km. In October 2000 a second phase of research was contracted with LFK, to develop two further missiles with a larger boost motor. The new motor will burn for 1.8 seconds, and will accelerate the missile to M7.0 (2.3km/s). The first test of the new missile was made in February 2002.
A joint proposal was made by BGT and LFK in June 2001 to co-ordinate the two earlier projects into one design, to be used as a replacement for the Roland SAM and for possible use as an AAM from helicopters. The new design is for a two stage missile, with first- and second-stage solid propellant motors. The first-stage motor has TVC, The motor efflux from the second-stage motor will be exhausted from two side nozzles in the missile body, forward of the wings. This will enable the two motors to be fired together or sequentially, depending on the target range. The missile has four long chord wings at mid-body and four control fins at the rear, similar to the IRIS-T air-to-air missile and SM-2MR Standard surface-to air missile. The flight speed will be 2.0 to 2.5 km/second, with a range in excess of 10 km. The second stage has an IIR seeker, with inertial guidance in mid-course and a command uplink to enable the missile to intercept targets behind hills or terrain cover. A small fragmentation warhead will probably be fitted, although the objective is to achieve *hit-to-kill’. Full-scale development is expected to start in 2004, with a planned in-service date of 2009.

Visual References

6517-4457d4c09ea3f535b0844248489b6e14