[Blindés] La modernisation des M60

[Serge]

Un article très intéressant sur la modernisation au standard SLEP du M60 que propose Raytheon :

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.fr/2016/05/slep-raytheons-new-m60-upgrade.html?m=1

En plus du lien vers une vidéo de présentation du SLEP, ce billet présente une série de problématiques propres à la modernisation des M60.

Pourquoi ce char de modernise mal ? A lire.

[Ciders]

Je n'y connais pas grand chose en la matière, mais est-ce qu'il existe un marché pour la modernisation des M60 ? Et est-ce qu'il existe une demande pour les anciens M60 retirés du service, notamment par les États-Unis et Israël ?

[DZIRI]

il y a 19 minutes, Ciders a dit :

Je n'y connais pas grand chose en la matière, mais est-ce qu'il existe un marché pour la modernisation des M60 ? Et est-ce qu'il existe une demande pour les anciens M60 retirés du service, notamment par les États-Unis et Israël ?

il y a les versions Sabra de l'israélien IMI en service en Israël et en Turquie équipées de blindage et de canon dérivés du char Merkava ( blindage nouvelle génération et canon de 120 au lieu de 105)    

il y a 32 minutes, Serge a dit :

Un article très intéressant sur la modernisation au standard SLEP du M60 que propose Raytheon :

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.fr/2016/05/slep-raytheons-new-m60-upgrade.html?m=1

En plus du lien vers une vidéo de présentation du SLEP, ce billet présente une série de problématiques propres à la modernisation des M60.

Pourquoi ce char de modernise mal ? A lire.

GIAT  proposait la tourelle du leclerc pour la série T 72 et M60  non ?? 

[Serge]

IComme semble l'indiquer l'article, le M60 n'est peut être pas le char le plus pertinent à moderniser.

Il faudrait voir le nombre de pays qui en alignent encore. A cela, on regarde les coûts en les comparant à des occasions de chars plus récents (Leopard 2, T72) et enfin on évalue le lien diplomatique entre le pays client et le pays fournisseur. A la fin, il doit pas rester grand chose.

Peut être trois à quatre pays.

Israel vient de son côté de sortir du service actif tous ses Magash. Ils ne servent plus qu'en réserve. Un truc pour eux serait de démonter les tourelles des Pereh, encore sur châssis M48, pour les monter sur des châssis M60. Ceux-ci ont des caisses mieux blindés.

il y a 27 minutes, DZIRI a dit :

il y a les versions Sabra de l'israélien IMI en service en Israël et en Turquie équipées de blindage et de canon dérivés du char Merkava ( blindage nouvelle génération et canon de 120 au lieu de 105)

Le standard Sabra est uniquement en service en Turquie.

Les modernisations des Magash 7 B, C ou D, s'ils lui ressemblent parfois, n'en sont pas. Ils peuvent biensûr utiliser des technologies de blindage similaires (standard C et D). De plus, seul les Merkava 3 et 4 ont un 120mm. Tout le reste est en 105.

Citation

 GIAT  proposait la tourelle du leclerc pour la série T 72 et M60  non ?? 

La tourelle T21 était bien une déclinaison de celle du Leclerc. Le marché initial portait bien sur les T72. Il est tout à fait possible que le châssis M60 soit compatible. 

Les américains avaient fait la même proposition en plaçant une tourelle de M1A1 sur un châssis M60. C'était le M60 120S. Aucun client.

Modifié le 8 mai 2016 par Serge

[DZIRI]

les pays non otan ayant le M60 se tournent maintenant  vers le M1 abrams d'occasion ou remis à neuf à l'exemple du Maroc qui s'est offert 200 pour 1 milliard $..

[Serge]

Dans le cas du SLEP, la proposition de la climatisation et du GAP est intéressante en cela qu'elle offre des interdictions de pointage importantes.

Il fallait oser.

Même si, en contre partie, cela augmente la protection de l'arrière de la tourelle en fermant des angles gênants.

Modifié le 29 mai 2016 par Serge

[Sovngard]

Au final, cet ensemble d'améliorations proposé cette fois par Raytheon semble moins onéreux que ce que la firme turque StandartBio proposait en 2013, outre de ce qui a déjà été énoncé, il suffit de comparer les propositions de motorisation ; l'AVDS-1790-2C peut être gonflé jusqu'à 950 chevaux (AVDS-1790-7A) sans trop demander de modifications, ce qui n'aurait pas été le cas si l'on voulait la version à 1050 (8A) ou 1200 chevaux (9A).
 

il y a 45 minutes, Serge a dit :

Un truc pour eux serait de démonter les tourelles des Pereh sur châssis M48 pour les monter sur des châssis M60 si ceux-ci ont des caisses mieux blindés.

En terme d'épaisseur, le glacis et l'avant de la caisse du M48 sont plus mince, par contre le plancher de ce dernier serait plus épais que celui du M60.

Modifié le 8 mai 2016 par Sovngard
Ajout d'un lien

[Serge]

Intéressant pour le plancher.

Les photos de Magash 7 éventrés par des IED étaient assez impressionnantes. 

[Sovngard]

il y a 2 minutes, Serge a dit :

Intéressant pour le plancher.

Les photos de Magash 7 éventrés par des IED étaient assez impressionnantes. 

En effet, mais entre les deux, ça ne se joue que sur une dizaine de millimètres.

[Serge]

10mm, ça fait déjà 1cm. Ça fait beaucoup. On vois bien sur la protection mine n'était pas la priorité.

Je viens de regarder la différence de masse entre un M48 et un M60. Elle est très faible alors qu'il y a un blindage meilleurs.

Pour mettre ici, ils ont du gratter là.

Petit rappel : les tous premiers M60 avaient le caisse M48 améliorée à l'avant et la tourelle du M48 avec canon de 105. Ce n'est que sur le standard M60-A1 que la tourelle serait le modèle que nous lui connaissons. 

Modifié le 8 mai 2016 par Serge

[Sovngard]

Une illustration pour bien différencier M60 et M60A1 :

 

 

Et si vous voulez des masses :

 

M60

Poids en ordre de combat : 46,2 tonnes

Poids à vide : 42,4 tonnes

 

M60A1

Poids en ordre de combat : 47,6 tonnes

Poids à vide : 44 tonnes

 

 

Modifié le 9 mai 2016 par Sovngard
Ajout de données

[Serge]

Il y a un gros client potentiel : l'Iran.

[Sovngard]

Il y a 2 heures, Serge a dit :

Il y a un gros client potentiel : l'Iran.

Ils en ont encore une bonne centaine mais qu'en est-il de leur bon demi-millier de Chieftain ?

[Serge]

L'Iran avait un lot de 350 M60 A1.

Le plus gros parc est celui de l'Egypte avec plus de 1500 chars. Il est suivi des Grecs avec 700 chars. Les sahoudiens en auraient plus de 350.

[collectionneur]

Et Taïwan qui a du mal à avoir du matériel de pointe ?  

Une modernisation de leurs M60 serait plus facile a avalé pour Pékin que des M1 même de seconde main.

[Serge]

Un billet comme toujours intéressant sur le M60T touché par un missile. Un effet de la modernisation ?

Citation

About that M60T which survived a Kornet ATGM...

On the 19th April 2016 a photograph of a damaged  M60T tank have been posted on the internet. The tank was attacked by terrorists using supposedly a Russian Kornet (9M133, NATO reporting name AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Jane's also reported on this matter.

The M60T tank is a version of the Sabra Mark 2 tank upgrade by the Israeli Military Inudstries (IMI) developed for the Turkish Army. It is based on the Sabra upgrade for the M60 main battle tank (MBT). The Sabra add upgrade includes additional special armor (composite and/or reactive armor), a 120 milimetre smoothbore gun, the Knight fire control system (FCS) and upgrades to the engine aswell as the transmission. 
In case of the Sabra Mark 2 on which the M60T is based, the M60's AVDS-1790 engine and Allison transmission are replaced with the MT881 engine and Renk R304S transmission from the German companies MTU and Renk. The armor solution has been described as hybrid armor, which might suggest a type of ERA in combination with passive armor. However also the combination of non-explosive reactive armor types (NERA, NxRA) with passive armor has been described as hybrid armor.

Damaged M60T tank after the impact of a Kornet ATGM

Following the release of the photograph of the damaged tank, a lot of different claims and opinions on the matter of the effectiveness of tanks, the M60T's armor, ATGMs and the Kornet have been made. While some of these claims and opinions are based on a careful evaluation of the available information and on a reasonable thought process, it appears that a lot of people have abused the incident for preaching their own beliefs — "tanks are dead", "Turkish M60 tank is better armored than Russian T-90", "missiles cannot penetrate ERA/modern armor".

So, what should one learn from the incident? Is the M60T Sabra tank able to survive a Kornet ATGM under all circumstances? Can it survive a Kornet ATGM at least frontally? Or can any old, last generation tank be upgraded with a lightweight armor package to survive an impact from the Kornet ATGM? Is the Kornet weaker than other ATGMs? 
First of all, let's take a few looks at the M60T/Sabra and the Kornet ATGM. The M60T is based on the M60 tank from the 1960s. It uses the original turret and chassis, but has additional hybrid armor laid over the steel construction. How much armor? An approximation for this answer can be found by looking at the vehicle weight: The M60T has supposedly a weight of 59 metric tons - that is between 7 and 8 metric tons heavier than the original M60 model on which it is based. The weight increase is however not only the result of the new armor modules, but is also related to the 120 mm smoohtbore gun, the heavier powerpack and new fire control system components. Just for the reference, the weight of the composite armor modules of the original Leopard 2 turret only (from 1979) supposedly is 8 metric tons, while the turret is considerably smaller! Yes, the original Leopard 2 uses older armor, but instead of just replacing the old armor modules during future upgrades, additional armor was installed, increasing the turret weight by about 5 metric tons.

The Kornet ATGM is meant to combat modern main battle tanks from the front - it's 152 mm calibre tandem warhead is much more capable than the RPG-29 with 105 mm calibre warhead with precursor charge. According to Russian sources the Kornet ATGM can depending on version penetrate between 1,000 and 1,300 mm of steel armor, which given the missile's calibre and the penetration power of modern shaped charge warheads seems plausible.

Above is a screen-capture from the video, which supposedly shows the same M60T being hit by the Kornet ATGM. While it cannot be said for sure that this is the same tank, sources like Jane's have claimed that the only reason for releasing the photograph of the damaged tank was to counter the terrorists' propaganda, which claimed that the M60T was destroyed by the Kornet missile.
The screenshot from the video shows a number of interesting facts. Most importantly here is however the location and the angle of the impact. By comparing the position of the gun (marked in blue) to the path of the missile (marked in red), we can see that the missile approached from the left side (from the tank's perspective) and impacted on the righthand side of the turret frontal armor.

This means that the missile passed the gun barrel and impact on the frontal armor below the gunner's sight at an angle, which made it impossible to hit the base turret behind the armor. The missile's impact path was facing away from the turret. The large module of spaced hybrid armor was probably the only reason why the missile detonated, otherwise it most likely would have missed given the extremely sleek turret cheeks of the M60 tank!

Did the M60T survive a Kornet missile? Yes. Would the missile have hit the tank, if it wasn't for the additional armor module? Most likely not. If the missile had more penetration power, could it have penetrated the M60T's turret and killed the crew? Based on the angle from the video footage, no.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.fr/2016/05/about-that-m60t-which-survived-kornet.html?m=1

Modifié le 25 mai 2016 par Serge

[Serge]

Le moyen-orient est un objectif diplomatique. Aussi, la modernisation des M60 est un enjeux :

Citation

Raytheon breathes new life into Patton tanks

Jen Judson, Defense News 7:02 a.m. EDT June 5, 2016

(Photo: Getty Images / Staff)

WASHINGTON — Raytheon, in concert with the US Army, has put together a package of upgrades to modernize 1960s-era Patton tanks still used by many Middle Eastern countries.

The effort is a procurement formula for bringing old equipment up to speed in an era where most countries' defense spending budgets are declining and the idea of building anything new from the ground up is rarity.

The Pentagon and the defense industry have heard it said countless times: The military services have to make do with what they have.

And the services are turning more and more to upgrading and modernizing what they already own whether it’s aircraft like the CH-47 Chinook expected to fly for 100 years before it’s retired in the 2060s or taking vehicles already in the inventory and adding lethality through a bigger gun like in the case of the Stryker.

Raytheon’s Mission Support and Modernization business core competency is taking a look at what is in a military’s inventory and figuring out ways to sustain and modernize such equipment to meet the current threat using an affordable strategy.

“The thing that is most interesting to me when you look at the current state from a readiness standpoint and what we need to do, all the things the administration wants to do, focus on the war on terror, the shift to the Pacific, deal with emerging cyber threats, it’s something that is a fairly significant challenge given the budget environment that we are in,” Todd Probert, Raytheon’s vice president in charge of the business sector, told Defense News.

“I think the recipe we have, modernization through sustainment, is going to be a key mechanism for the US to move through this period,” he said.

And that strategy will likely be employed by countless other countries around the world as well.

Take the M60 Patton tank, for example. It became the standard main battle tank for the US Army in the 1960s, but was replaced by the M1 Abrams 20 years later. Yet, there are still Patton tanks used by countries around the world and there are estimated to be about 7,000 to 10,000 of them used by countries in the Middle East, Probert said.

Raytheon said it was aware of tanks remaining in Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, Israel, Thailand and Taiwan.

The company’s program to upgrade the Patton tanks began many years back when Raytheon developed a new fire control solution for Jordan’s tanks. Raytheon completed fielding the new fire control systems to the country about five years ago, according to Probert

Now Raytheon has created a package of modernization-level upgrades for the tanks that goes far beyond the initial upgrade for Jordan, Probert said.

The company’s service life extension program for the M60 A3 variant increases lethality ranges and accuracy through an advanced digital fire control system using US Army-developed software and by swapping out the tank’s 150mm cannon with a 120mm gun.

Raytheon has also changed out a 750 horsepower engine to a 950 horsepower one, which restarts the engine to zero-hour condition, Probert said.

The tank weighs a full ton less as Raytheon has changed out the hydraulics with electronic systems.

Through the new upgrades the tank will also be able to fire on the move rather than having to use a soldier in the loop to stop the tank, aim the gun and fire, which turns the tank into an easy target on the battlefield. The fire control system is linked to a GPS that tells it where the tank is and digitally coordinates automatic aiming, discrimination and firing capability.

The entire package of upgrades would cost one-third of the price tag of a new tank, he said.

The Patton tanks “are a generation older, but with what we are doing, we are allowing them to be more relevant in the current fight,” Probert said.

The tank and its full package of upgrades has been tested rigorously at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in partnership with the US Army.

Raytheon has been in discussions with a number of countries in the Middle East about upgrading tanks, seeing an emerging need for the service life extension of the vehicles.

“It comes down to systems engineering first and foremost, coming in and appreciating what is needed marry that up with the customers' desires and with what the threat and challenges that they are facing, and system engineering a solution that makes sense for that platform or that particular IT or intelligence command and control system,” Probert said.

“We have a lot of stuff in play,” he added.

Email: jjudson@defensenews.com

Twitter: @JenJudson

 

Modifié le 5 juin 2016 par Serge