CV/90-40 + Lemur? Why not?

[macieksoft]

On this video you can see a Lemur RWS mounted on CV/90-40 vehicle.

Are there any plans to include it in SB?

I think that would be nice to have one mounted on CV/90-40 in SB of course as optional weapon. It would be really usefull because CV/90-40 do not have a ballistic compensation for COAX. Also 12,7 could kill enemy infantry from longer range without need to waste 40mm rounds.

And of course it would act as a commanders observation system so commander could be what he can be...

...Be a guy who is responsible for finding targets while gunner is busy.

What you think about this.

Why not to include it?

Not so much work as the Lemur and a vehicle is actually simulated so there is only a need to combine them together.

[Tjay]

[quote=macieksoft;266228

Not so much work as the Lemur and a vehicle is actually simulated so there is only a need to combine them together.

But it IS the Lemur, is it not? Or am I missing the point?:confused:

[Grenny]

Well, weather is is much work or not(and if this work is worth it), we can not judge that.

Only esim can :-P

New features would always be nice. But usually it would have to meet an important condition here:

An MoD-customer must want it so it fit within contract time.

Or esim must have time left besides the official requirements to implement extra stuff.

Thats how we got the T-72 ;-)

(At least that my impresson.)

[dejawolf]

no military customer has asked for it. and afaik, it's only prototypes.

[Ssnake]

I don't want to create the impression that our work depends exclusively on customization contracts. But at least I'd like to see that a certain vehicle variant has left the experimentation stage and is actually fielded in numbers before spending time on it.

[Hedgehog]

'ere

I have a question:

How does/would the Lemur interface with the FCS of the turret/vehicle?

Is there a standard NATO coded interface?

So for example like Mackiesoft says:

The VC is observing and finds a target worthy of the guinner's attention and wants to point him at it.

Does this signal then go through a "Black Box" that converts it into something the turret FCS understands?

Or does the Lemur plug straight into an "Aux input port" of the FCS?

(Maybe with a button on the Lemur saying "You are talking to the CV9040C, use Swedish")

And does the same apply for example to an AUS M1A1?

Plug the lemur into the turret FCS and press the button "You are talking to an M1A1, use U.S. English"

(Actually that'sd be pretty awesome a CIDTV that fights back. )

Or is this beyond eSim's remit?

[Zipuli]

Norway is upgrading its CV9030N fleet, and it also has an RWS on the turret.

[Retro]

'ere

I have a question:

How does/would the Lemur interface with the FCS of the turret/vehicle?

Is there a standard NATO coded interface?

So for example like Mackiesoft says:

The VC is observing and finds a target worthy of the guinner's attention and wants to point him at it.

Does this signal then go through a "Black Box" that converts it into something the turret FCS understands?

Or does the Lemur plug straight into an "Aux input port" of the FCS?

(Maybe with a button on the Lemur saying "You are talking to the CV9040C, use Swedish")

And does the same apply for example to an AUS M1A1?

Plug the lemur into the turret FCS and press the button "You are talking to an M1A1, use U.S. English"

(Actually that'sd be pretty awesome a CIDTV that fights back. )

Or is this beyond eSim's remit?

The civilian industry doesn't manage to do anything like this with home automation (my VCR talking to my stereo etc), what makes you think the 'military-industrial complex' would do any better..

[AlphaOneSix]

The civilian industry doesn't manage to do anything like this with home automation (my VCR talking to my stereo etc), what makes you think the 'military-industrial complex' would do any better..

Of course this sort of standard intercommunication already exists in the military world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1553

[Retro]

Well that's a bus protocol (so the plugs fit and one device doesn't fry the other one, and that they can coexist on the bus), that's a far cry from saying that arbitrary device A can talk to and control arbitrary device B (and let's not forget that 'controlling' involves sending steering commands to heavy machinery and weapons).

[Ssnake]

...in a safe and reliable manner.

[Hedgehog]

That's why you have lawyers.

They figure out who to blame when it goes pear shaped.

Anyway.

The Key Buzzword here is "Systems Intergration" big defense corporations live for these words.

(And the fat invoices that price them out of the smaller markets.)

Good thing this kind of R&D isn't readily chargeable to the end user, unless you ask for it.

[Froggy]

http://www.combatandsurvival.com/news/international/387-norway-upgrade-is-most-advanced-cv90-to-date

Not Lemur but Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station, same RWS fitted on french VAB, VBL and VPC (and futur Griffon VBMR).

[Grenny]

http://www.combatandsurvival.com/news/international/387-norway-upgrade-is-most-advanced-cv90-to-date

Not Lemur but Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station, same RWS fitted on french VAB, VBL and VPC (and futur Griffon VBMR).

Looks ugly

[dejawolf]

http://www.combatandsurvival.com/news/international/387-norway-upgrade-is-most-advanced-cv90-to-date

Not Lemur but Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station, same RWS fitted on french VAB, VBL and VPC (and futur Griffon VBMR).

and american stryker.

[Invader ZIM]

There were some recent videos of U.S. M1A2's in Germany, looks like almost all of them had remote CROWS II turrets on them.

Tank M1A2 SEP v.2 Abrams, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, the United States Army during NATO maneuvers "Combined Resolve II". Polygon Hohenfels (Germany), 29.05.2014 © Gertrud Zach / United States Army

Seems to be the big trend in force multipliers for armored vehicles recently.

[Tjay]

Presumably, when something like the CV90 has a Lemur fitted, it also gets a separate sight? I'd have thought it would be difficult to fit this in alongside a conventional GPS, so is the Lemur operatef by the TC?

[Gibsonm]

Seems to be the big trend in force multipliers for armored vehicles recently.

Yes people applying lessons from the last war.

Or from a cynic's point of view people building and marketing solutions to a perceived need based on a specific series of lessons learned.

Its another variation on the whole "A" war Vs "The" war argument.

[Assassin 7]

There were some recent videos of U.S. M1A2's in Germany, looks like almost all of them had remote CROWS II turrets on them.

Seems to be the big trend in force multipliers for armored vehicles recently.

The M1A2 SEP V2 in Germany, they all were issued with CROWS II system installed. But lately there have been debate's of keeping this system installed or removing it due to complications of this system.

[Rotareneg]

Just duct tape an M2 to the side of the main gun.

[Tacbat]

Or above it:

[Ssnake]

...or driver closer, so you can hit them with your sword.

[macieksoft]

Just duct tape an M2 to the side of the main gun.

There was something like this. It was called CSAMM (Counter Sniper Anti Material Mount) and it was basically M2 mounted on the main gun (operated by gunner) on M1A1 (not A2).

I heared that FCS is working for this gun so it applies the correction for a range.

Its a nice thing, anyway not really for snipers (snipers are not so much threat for a tank, you can drive close to sniper and kill this duck by driving over him, i know its arcadish idea from BF3 but it may work ) but its good for ATGM personel. 2km of range is good thing.

I want it i want this shitt in sb pro pe We actually have M2 and M1A1 so just buy a ducttape and become amateur electronic to change FCS behavior and its done...

My uncle who was a tank crew told me that T-55 had a machinegun operated by driver firing straight forward (no possibility to aim it, you must turn whole tank to aim) but then it was removed and drivers was trained to use tracks as a weapon.

I think that replacing 7.62 coax with 12.7mm one (M2 or M3) would be nice. Increased range is always helpfull when you see a guy who is probably screaming allah akbar with hes best friend, ATGM launcher, you may be in trouble with your small gun.

[Gibsonm]

You can't just change the coax to 0.50" because you think its a good thing.

The whole basis behind Steel Beasts is that its accurate, not fantasy made up stuff like WoT.

And besides the anti sniper role makes a fair bit of sense when the sniper is up above the ground and not really in a position to be run over.

[macieksoft]

I do not mean replacing it in SB. I mean replacing it in reality.

Leclerc is actually a tank that is using 12,7mm coaxial.

I personally do not understand a trend to add 12,7mm gun. It would make more sense to replace the coaxial. Because when you trying to reload this CSAMM you are being sniper's target so instead of protecting you from sniper fire it make you more vunerable to sniper fire.

Also notice the location of CSAMM, its non practical when reloading. You must probably stand on turret, no way to do it while standing in hatch, the CASMM is too much forward...

So it should be called SHAMM (Sniper Helper Anti Material Mount). Because unless you mount it you dont care about snipers, after you mount it you must care about those little guys armed with its toy guns...

Read last thing in my sigunature, "Unbuttoned commander and gunner are duckheads :c: " And sniper is something like this hammer if you are unbuttoned.