They don’t. Only F-2 can
Spoiler
1 Like
In J/AAQ-2 documentation is said that it can track and calculate distance for targets so probably it can be used as aiming FLIR pod
1 Like
TRUE! I actually forgot about that one. there was a plan to integrate them on the JAS39A but it was never followed through with as they instead chose the RB99 (AIM-120).
That doesn’t sound correct, i’m pretty sure both the L/44 and L/55 could fire the DM53 before the new L/55 A1 came and increased the pressure tolerances. The DM53 was introduced around 2001 and the L/55 A1 didn’t come until like 2018 IIRC.
well, its not like they haven’t done that before.
The JA37C and D variants and the JAS39A and C do basically that. they are exactly the same with the addition of more advanced munition (that the previous version already used IRL).
The F-2 isn’t in the game. or have i missed something?
Yes, but all the tanks you’re talking about had received new breechblocks in order to use DM53, the K900 series (2A5 already had it, 2A6s only replaced the barrel), a 2A4 for example would not be able to use DM53 because they have all had K600 series.
Ariete’s cannon is homegrown, it was never meant to take on projectiles as hot-firing as DM53 (hence why they still use M/95 in real life, despite the fact DM73 has entered service with Germany’s Bundeswehr not that long ago), in fact, its pMax is only about ~640MPa, and Italy has not performed any upgrades in this particular direction.
1 Like
Nope, I was generally speaking. Currently there is nothing that can use JDAMs, in the Japanese Tch Tree.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say the situations are comparable though, going from 9J to 9L is a huge upgrade (especially when at the time, 9L had been performing as it it was a 9M), and going from no ARH to 120A is also huge.
Going from GBU-16 to GBU-54 is, eh, not even really an upgrade? More like a side-grade.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity; where did you find this info?
All info i have seen so far in my previous personal searches is that the L/44 and L/55 could handle the same pressures in the breach. I might be completely wrong but in that case it would be nice to have a source that i could point to in the future :)
1 Like
And by this logic Britain’s Tornado GR.1 should have Paveway IVs because GR.4 had them and it’s “just a JDAM with an additional guidance method”.
I honestly don’t expect Tornado GR.4 to come with Brimstone at launch.
Terma MCP, Litening pod, Paveway IV and possibly ASRAAM will probably be all, and those provide a parity with later ASSTA variants for Germany that will likely have BOZ-EC, GBU-54 and possibly IRIS-T.
On the Rh 120 breechblocks or Ariete’s pMax?
Rh 120 info comes from Leopard 2: sein Werden und seince Leistung by Paul Werner Krapke
Italian info comes from an old article that I do not have at hand atm.
1 Like
Alright?
Add them lol. I’m not seeing any issue with that as long as Tornado’s become ever so slightly better.
Though, this topic is about JDAMs and whatnot, UKs 39C got them, so you’re kinda comparing apples to oranges here as one has got them already, and the other hasn’t.
1 Like
That image talks about a new recoil break and not chamber pressure. the recoil break is to mitigate the barrels pushback and the wobble of the barrel after firing. That doesn’t mean that the L/44 can’t fire the DM53.
EDit:
additionally the DM53 only has a chamber pressure of 545Mpa (image shows pressure in bar):
https://web.archive.org/web/20070805005735/http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm
Edit 2:
even Rheinmetal themselves state that the DM63 (DM53A1) is rated for the Leopard 2A4:
1 Like
Yes, but that’s only a part of the equation. The second one is DM53s generated pressure at higher temps (700MPa+) & L/44s very own pMax + K600s max recoil force.
K900 is for the increased recoil generated by the firing of DM53, new tube for increased pressure (
additionally the DM53 only has a chamber pressure of 545Mpa (image shows pressure in bar)
Only at the nominal temp of 21C (which honestly cannot be maintained without an A/C). Here’s a graph that explains it more;
Honestly it’s a misconception that DM53 couldn’t be used simply because of barrel pressure, it was a combination of both pressure and recoil.
even Rheinmetal themselves state that the DM63 (DM53A1) is rated for the Leopard 2A4
DM63 (and DM53A1, they’re technically two different projectiles, the latter is an upgrade/modernisation of DM53 to DM63 standard and making it compliant with older variants) had been made exactly because Leopard 2A4s were not capable of using DM53.
1 Like
We have actually. The New Iran Tomcat uses Rusian Radar Missiles they couldnt use in irl because of incompability with the radar set or the 2s38 who uses apfsds even in rl its doesnt use them
2 Likes
Brother; only the US really has JDAM, and other NATO craft.
Correct designation of these ore GNSS or GISS bombs.
Edit, i read it wrong, ignore.
The last document i linked shows the upgraded recoil L/44 barrels that they have named L/47LR and L/47LLR.
so naming the L/44 specifically means that it can be fired without the recoil modifications. Or am i missing something completely?
The fact that DM53A1 exists means that logically there had to be DM53 round out for use for those tanks with L/44 barrels that then for safety reasons (assumed safety by me) were modified to lower pressures.
I don’t think i’ve seen any evidence that the L/44 can’t fire DM53, only that it wasn’t safe in many environments and temperatures.
1 Like
DM53(A1) exists because even nations with L/55s and K900s were hurt (their wallets that is) as DM53 shreds the barrel’s chrome lining and for a few other reasons.
Two, even if Rh 120 L/44s could use DM53 (a few times as they’re just about strong enough to withstand it), what does it changes for the Ariete which by all measures has a cannon that is quite a bit worse?
I don’t think i’ve seen any evidence that the L/44 can’t fire DM53, only that it wasn’t safe in many environments and temperatures.
There isn’t really any conclusive evidence that they couldn’t, but Germany’s upgrade of the barrel (yes, Rh L/55 actually has higher pressure resistance than the L/44) & replacement of the breechblock to a variant with much higher recoil resistance, as well as the reluctance of other countries to not use anything other than the A1 variant of the DM53 are pretty telling if you ask me.
Though, on the old Rheinmetall website they do stress that DM63 is the only one out of the two that is useable with all Leopard 2 weapon systems, they do not state that for the DM53.
1 Like
You are saying a lot of reasonable things. I think my main issue is the lack of sources here.
I’m inclined to believe you but so far i have only seen evidence that supports that L/44 both could and did fire DM53 rounds.
no? the only change made was a longer barrel. the number in the naming stands for the length, any further changes are noted by suffixes.
They specifically mention the DM53 being fired from the L/44:
“On account of improved exploitation of the charge volume and a weight-optimised sabot, when the DM 53 is fired from the L44 barrel the muzzle energy is 15 percent higher, and no less than 30 percent when it is fired from the L55 barrel.”
1 Like
Yes.
(Also mentions the need for the K900 recoil brakes, and, my apologies, I confused the breechblock with the recoil brakes earlier)
They specifically mention the DM53 being fired from the L/44:
Ohh gee, I wonder why, couldn’t be that 2A5s and prototypes had received K900s thus allowing the tank to use DM53.
I think my main issue is the lack of sources here.
That’s fair.
1 Like