🧵So a few weeks ago, I got to try out IWI's Arbel, a computerised electronic fire control system, that unlike other FCS', does not rely on a electro-optical based solution.
The Arbel system exists in two forms: a lower receiver for the Arad (and other AR pattern rifles) and a pistol grip module for the Negev family of MGs.
So how does the system work ? All it's doing is just slowing down the RoF, right ? Well not quite. There is a bit more going on. The heart of Arbel is a MEMS unit paired with a computing unit and a proprietary algorithm.
The MEMS unit has a couple of sensors onboard (accelerometer, magnetometer, gyro) that take readings up until the point you fire your first round. Directional data is converted to a vector value and stored aboard the system's memory. Essentially creating a direction of fire.
As you hold down the trigger, the system continues taking readings and creating directional data. This data is compared in real time to the original vector value, and the sear is automatically released when those values match.
Now the algorithm generates a passing zone and firing boundaries around that original vector value, allowing you to track and lead moving targets for example.
The origins of the system date from an IDF study into increasing the hit probability of follow-up rounds in short time windows (around 3 seconds). Studies showed that the first round fired was usually on or near the target, but the follow-ups would often miss.
This was due to several factors: recoil control, trigger control, stress, elevated heart and breathing rates... The first shot taken in 'Arbel mode' (a position on the selector) is completely unaided. The system only starts regulating the cadence for all the follow-up shots.
As soon as you let off the trigger, the system resets, and a new vector value can be generated for the subsequent engagement.
The system has been tested on the Negev up to 500 m with relatively impressive results:
And of course the potential application in the small C-UAS role is very topical right now. An interesting bit of tech !
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Some stuff I've picked up from the 🇰🇵 parade yesterday (will be adding to it progressively). Starting off with this thing. Some kind of magazine fed self-loading grenade launcher perhaps ?
The rather bulky design of the ERA solution highlights the challenges of integrating ERA to lightly armoured vehicles. Its not quite a simple as slapping some Kontakt-1/5 on the sides of the hulll and calling it a day. In fact doing just that can make things worse.
So what can go wrong ? Well, ERA, especially the early types, often can't completely stop a SCJ, there is often a residual element, usually the tip, that makes it through before the flyer plates can come apart. Hence why you still need backing armour to absorb it.
The AK-12M1, allegedly will enter production next year. Introduces some changes based on feedback from 🇺🇦. Features the new stock/ cheek rest combo and ambi fire selector from the AK-12SP. An AK-19 style, fixed flash suppressor replaces the earlier pattern brake.
The traditional rear AK sight, or the 2nd Gen diopter, have been replaced by a flip-up aperture. A 'П' battle sight (0.5 - 200 m, with additional night sight) and 600 m apertures are available. The 🇫🇮 and 🇮🇱 did this decades ago...
The new ambi selector ditches the 2-round burst capability, and apparently, also now mechanically locks the bolt when the safety is engaged (rather than just blocking the bolt's full range of rearward travel).
The recent-ish procurement by 🇫🇷 and the 🇳🇱 of Hirtenberger's M6C-640 Mk1 60 mm commando mortar, examplifies, I think, why NATO standardisation in ammunition is often less straight forward in practice than in concept. A little🧵:
It took the 🇳🇱 almost 4 years to qualify the M6C, with deliveries of 155 weapons having taken place in 2015. Ammunition qualification was completed in 2018, with the DMO granting full qualification for use with the Army, Marines and SF in early 2019. Why so long ?
Well, in 2016 two 🇳🇱 service members were killed, and another injured in Mali when a 60 mm mortar bomb suffered an in-bore premature detonation during a training excersive in Kidal 🇲🇱. The investigation found that the fuze malfunctioned due to heat and moisture exposure
Wanted to do a follow-up on the SPO Varna 'flamethrower' as there isn't much written about in either English or Russian. Introduced circa 2005, it was designed to compliment the RPO Schmel' and RPO PDM-A Priz line of launchers. Its RKhBZ code is MO.1.09.00
The launcher is the same as the RPO-A (marked with a red cross on the end caps), but inside, they are very different. The RPO fires a fin stabilised projectile filled with thermobaric, incendiary or smoke producing mixtures. The SPO houses a canister with a fixed launch motor.
The actual 'projectile' is a sausage like mesh 'bag' containing an incendiary mixture. In this case, 2.5 kg of OM-12 pyrogel, the same as used in the RPO-Z. The rear of the mesh container is fitted with some kind of igniter compound, which is itself ignited at launch.
Been pouring over some Sig patents for the their LMG, and thought I'd highlight some minor design changes from the production MX250 compared to the first prototype I saw in 2019. These are external changes of course, not much has been publicly disclosed about the internals so far
The production model (left) now has a continuous length M-LOK interface on the underside, and the profile of the upper portion has been tweaked. The prodution XM250 has lost its side folding stock capability, due to the necessesity of a battery pack for the powered rail.
Aside to some minor profile tweaks here and there, it doesn't appear to have changed all that much. Of course there is the 'rail on a rail' to properly accomodate the XM157, without interferring with the feed cover. Kinda validates the FN Evolys' design in that department.