I was shouted down. And it may have been speculation on my part but speculation that now seems to have been correct.

The snippets posted by kaiserbill clearly state that the LZN was spun off from the Bees Trok. It would make sense, SA had considerable automotive experience and LIW Special Vehicles division had particular experience with large off-road wheeled vehicles. Interesting mock-up by the way.
 
It could be that there were two vehicles in the programme initially.

After the 8x8 was selected, the 6x6 LZN was "spun off" from the programme, not the other vehicle?

Or both programme and vehicle?

It is possible we are all correct to a lesser or greater degree.

Either way, after seeing Abe's picture, here is just one of the pictures from the book.

The authors go to great lengths to explain it as a "generic TEL" made up of:

1. An extrapolation of the vehicle illustrated by A.V.A Systems (Pty) Ltd in it's 'Profile of the South African Army: Arniston Missile' DVD.
2. The Soviet MAZ 547V TEL.
3. Other open sources mentioned in this book, as well as the application of common sense.

The authors though keep saying that the pictures of the generic TEL speaks for themselves.
So, are the vehicles therefore a close approximation to the real thing, and the authors are being cagey?

Or possibly not...
 
I'm having trouble with my PC now.
Everytime I attempt to upload an attachment, the entire page freezes. (Yes, it is under the size limit and in the correct format.)
I'll post up as soon as I can rectify matters.
EDIT: My computer is not letting me do a range of basic things for some reason. I've scanned it in, and posted it via image shack. If somebody could copy this and post it as a normal attachment here,I can then delete this for obvious reasons.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Abe, where did you get that drawing purporting to be the Bees Trok from?

It looks as if either both the drawings are based on the same vehicle as seen, or perhaps one of the drawings is based on the other drawing, which is sometimes how things go.

They certainly show a very similar vehicle.
 
kaiserbill said:
Abe, where did you get that drawing purporting to be the Bees Trok from?

I 'drew' it by cutting and pasting a LZN side view into the dimensions quoted from "The Power". The RSA-3 was just downloaded from the internet and brought into scale. I then browned over the gaps.

One thing however about this before we get all LZN googly is that the appearance of the Beestrok could just as easily be a long wheelbase Kynos Aljabara. The connection between this truck and the 1980s SADF is something that is worthy of further exploration. The Spanish in the late 70s and 80s were one of the major illicit military tech partners of the RSA so who designed or concieved what is up for grabs.
 
"Those who had the Power" is probably the most authoritative source on this subject and it seems pretty explicit that the Beestrok was a variant/precursor of the LZN. We have discussed the Kynos Aljaba here before and it seems to be a couple of years too late to be the Beestrok. Jane's states that development of the type started in 1982, that prototypes were available in 1985 and that the first production vehicles were delivered to the Spanish Army (as Tank Transporters) in 1987. However, the first reference I have found to the type being in South Africa is from 1994 when the Cavallo (in service as a recovery vehicle) was unveiled by the South African Army. Apparently the decision to procure the type was only made by ARMSCOR in 1994 and the chassis was manufactured in Spain prior to being shipped to South Africa where it was fitted with an armoured cab- all of which makes it unlikely that the Aljaba has any relation to the Beestrok.
 
Very interesting topic btw., never knew there were so many different military vehicles in South Africa. Delightful reading. :)
 

Attachments

  • gxr7.jpg
    gxr7.jpg
    230.6 KB · Views: 756
Off f/book again,poster says these pics taken circa 1987 at "Riemvasmaak" base near Lohatla Army battle school while working out the G6 prior to deployment.

Please note the (really) lesser spotted animal...

*EDIT*

The gent confirmed that this MAN is the exact same as I saw in Rundu in '87 during "Ops Modular"

+ "we also had a BELL which was built the same as a KWEVOEL{mineproofed} that we were testing as a replacement for the aging gun tractors. this Bell was one of those you see on the mines where the entire cab turns seperately from the bin and this allows for a much tighter turning circle."

*Also interesting in terms of basis of the TEL.as this throws yet another option(for a commercial based vehicle) into the mix?
 

Attachments

  • man mech 530521_4634801167932_1597380038_n.jpg
    man mech 530521_4634801167932_1597380038_n.jpg
    71 KB · Views: 617
  • man mech 9736_4634796687820_2122645415_n.jpg
    man mech 9736_4634796687820_2122645415_n.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 567
Further to the Mysterious MANs of the Namib. I did notice in some of the leaked shooting photos for Mad Max 4: Fury Road which was filmed in Namibia that one of the wasteland war buggies is a MAN 8x8 with stuff added to the top of it... Hilarious if it’s one of the same trucks, likely total coincidence.

PS an articulated truck (Bell) would make for a poor TEL because it wouldn’t be able to offer as much rigid support to the missile. If the missile is, as is most likely, longer than the load section.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
PS an articulated truck (Bell) would make for a poor TEL because it wouldn’t be able to offer as much rigid support to the missile. If the missile is, as is most likely, longer than the load section.

With you on that score.

The articulated truck reference to the guntracker is coincidental to the TEL speculation,as it prompted the thought of other possibilities,knowing that many of our vehicles sourced commercial components due to the sanctions at the time and our huge mining industry.

Was thinking more along the lines of other models in the lineup of earthmovers,etc that could be the possibly or at leat conceptionally be the basis of either chassis,diffs,etc.Anyone with a period catalogue for eg BELL?
 
curious george said:
With you on that score.

The articulated truck reference to the guntracker is coincidental to the TEL speculation,as it prompted the thought of other possibilities,knowing that many of our vehicles sourced commercial components due to the sanctions at the time and our huge mining industry.

Was thinking more along the lines of other models in the lineup of earthmovers,etc that could be the possibly or at leat conceptionally be the basis of either chassis,diffs,etc.Anyone with a period catalogue for eg BELL?
The BELL idea is interesting, as they were in the business of manufacturing very large, powerful wheeled vehicles.
It does seem though that the TEL vehicles were built at LIW, although naturally the components would/could have come from elsewhere.
 
curious george said:
+ "we also had a BELL which was built the same as a KWEVOEL{mineproofed} that we were testing as a replacement for the aging gun tractors. this Bell was one of those you see on the mines where the entire cab turns seperately from the bin and this allows for a much tighter turning circle."

I've asked the guy to confirm whether this is the same vehicle as in our posts #670/1 as it seems to fit the timeline,but I've had no response as yet unfortunately.
 
Given the Iveco(Astra)/Magirus vs Samil connection,this "Iveco SIVI Euro trakker for dessert conditions" also seems a good candidate for eg our mystery 8 x 8 guntractor.

They also seem to have produced a range of vehicles that conceivably be a basis for a TEL too in that time period ,eg the 300 series 6 x 4 40tons launched round 1982 or so according to various web sources .
 

Attachments

  • Sivi_1.jpg
    Sivi_1.jpg
    10.9 KB · Views: 422
  • sivi 420E52W_EZ110_8X8_4.jpg
    sivi 420E52W_EZ110_8X8_4.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 144
curious george said:
Abraham Gubler said:
PS an articulated truck (Bell) would make for a poor TEL because it wouldn’t be able to offer as much rigid support to the missile. If the missile is, as is most likely, longer than the load section.

With you on that score.

It is a curious claim considering that there have been several TELs developed which have been articulated. The USAF "Midgetman" ones spring immediately to mind. Rigidity isn't a problem with an articulated TEL. What is a problem is that the TEL trailer needs to be longer than a non-articulated version, to allow the whole length of the missile to be contained or you have problems with either nose clearance of the cab or ground clearance of the tail (both when its erected and when its stowed).
 
Kadija_Man said:
It is a curious claim considering that there have been several TELs developed which have been articulated. The USAF "Midgetman" ones spring immediately to mind. Rigidity isn't a problem with an articulated TEL. What is a problem is that the TEL trailer needs to be longer than a non-articulated version, to allow the whole length of the missile to be contained or you have problems with either nose clearance of the cab or ground clearance of the tail (both when its erected and when its stowed).

I think you fail to understand what we were talking about. The Bell like similar Volvo, Terex and International trucks is a different sort of articulated truck to your basic semi trailer. These vehicles are sometimes called articulated haulers and articulated dump trucks (ADT). The articulated joint is within the wheel base of the vehicle and therefore the length of each section is severely limited compared to a stand-alone prime mover and trailer. The length of the aft section, which is not a removable trailer, could not be made long enough to accommodate a typical missile without overhang because it would place far too much stress on the articulated joint.

See here for a more detailed description of this class of vehicle that may bring you up to speed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_hauler
 
Found on the net so apologies if posted before.
 

Attachments

  • para ferret 577638_10151356382787750_1711524559_n.jpg
    para ferret 577638_10151356382787750_1711524559_n.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 161
  • para ferret 295326_10151356383687750_1568637646_n.jpg
    para ferret 295326_10151356383687750_1568637646_n.jpg
    55.1 KB · Views: 196
  • rooikat 35mm ice40.jpg
    rooikat 35mm ice40.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 176
  • rooikat 105 ice39.jpg
    rooikat 105 ice39.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 149
How many MC-90's were made?

I was under the impression only one was made, but it appears there are at least 2.
One forlorn example with different turret in faded nutria brown, and the other is display condition with the new camouflage scheme.
 

Attachments

  • mc90.JPG
    mc90.JPG
    167.4 KB · Views: 937
  • mc-90.jpg
    mc-90.jpg
    57.4 KB · Views: 1,016
  • MC-90Bloem 2010.jpg
    MC-90Bloem 2010.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 918
On the subject of the South African TEL vehicle, I've found out that MAN have had an assembly plant in South Africa since 1962.

Then, there is the bridging equipment shown earlier.
I think the vehicle is a Faun?

One wonders if these had any input into the TEL vehicle?
 

Attachments

  • SADF8X8Bridge.jpg
    SADF8X8Bridge.jpg
    38.9 KB · Views: 134
  • IceBear1_2001_082.JPG
    IceBear1_2001_082.JPG
    167.6 KB · Views: 757
  • bls.jpg
    bls.jpg
    7.1 KB · Views: 824
  • blt_blarge2.jpg
    blt_blarge2.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 853
In Reply 706 just above, I showed the 8x8 Bridgelayer that has been around since the late 1980's/eraly 1990's apparently, from photographic evidence.

Here is a better picture.

I've seen the 8x8 vehicle described as a SHE/Kynos, but it doesn't look like one to me.

Is it a Faun or a MAN?
 

Attachments

  • sadfbridgelayer.jpg
    sadfbridgelayer.jpg
    68.8 KB · Views: 166
I was at two demos of that bridge layer, the Sappers said it was a MAN. It broke down both times, hydraulic fluid all over the place.
 
What units do they hope to equip with 238 (?) vehicles? 2 battalions? Seems like an awfully long, uber expensive development cycle for such a small fleet. They must require upwards of 600 badgers. I would go as far to speculate they'll use a version of the RG 35 eventually to replace the rest of the ratels.
 
They may do, or they may recycle the Ratels through that radicle Ilkwa (or however it's spelled) programme.

I personally would like to see a purchase of the RG-41 8x8.

The old SADF had about 1200 Ratels.
Even with the reduction of numbers, you'd wonder how the limited numbers of Badger would suffice.

I was having a look through the original Hoefyster pdf posted eralier in the thread.
There are 3 vehicles on display, but the 4th entrant, the one from IADSA is not.
Anyone have any further info on this vehicle?
 
The RG-41 is based on a failed applicant for the Badger program is it not? Is it capable of operating the required turret options? I don't think I've seen it with an medium caliber gun integrated yet.
 
Tanner420 said:
The RG-41 is based on a failed applicant for the Badger program is it not? Is it capable of operating the required turret options? I don't think I've seen it with an medium caliber gun integrated yet.
I'm not sure.
As can be seen in this thread, the original programme to replace the Ratel was answered by 4 South African concept vehicles, 1 of which won the evaluation.
Then, an unsolicited bid came in from Patria a little while after this, and a very hasty re-opening of the competition resulted in just one vehicle being submitted in the brief timeframe, the Patria.
This of course caused a bit of a stink, with grumblings about corruption, which, looking at the other components of recent arms deals to South Africa.....

Even so, from the earlier competition, the turret was an early driver, as can be seen on the 3 vehicles on display at Bloemfontein. These were to be 30mm or 35mm equipped.
The MCT-30 (or LCT-30 previously) with their 30mm GI-30 gun now fitted to the Badger looks to be a development or variant of this turret.

None of those original 3 vehicles on display are the RG-41. (The 4th vehicle, from IADSA, is not displayed.)

As such, I'd be amazed if the RG-41 wasn't designed with this turret in mind.

Various sources say it can be fitted with a range of conventional or overhead turrets and with direct or indirect fire weapons.
TRT-25 turret it currently is fitted with can also take the Bushmaster Mk44 (30x173mm).
I've also seen it with the missile turret, and another turret in a small picture that is difficult to make out details on.
 
The RG-41 has also been fitted with a TRT turret mounting a 2A42 30x165mm gun.
Is the other turret you are referring to the one in the pictures linked below?
http://www.army-guide.com/images/rg41_sdfkjhk1.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XYDhVCdWMps/0.jpg
If yes, it appears to be a gun-less Eland 90 turret with additional weights fitted for mobility test purposes.
 
Yes CostasTT, that's the turret.

As I said, I would be extremely surprised if the vehicle wasn't designed for a range of turret options, including heavier weapons.
I've seen it mentioned that the remote TRT-25 turret that currently has the 25mm gun can be fitted with the Hughes M230 Chain Gun as is, or easily modified with a larger cradle for fitment of the 35x 173mm Bushmaster44.

I see in the original project, the Denel LCT-35 turret was specified, with a 35mm gun.
I assume this 35mm cannon is, or was based on, Denels GA-35mm cannon, as found on the Rooikat SPAAG, the eGLaS single 35mm, and the current twin 35mm DPG as found on the Valour class frigates.
This then became the LCT-30 turret, armed with Denels GI-30 dual feed linkless 30mm cannon.
I wonder why they decided to go for a new gun?
 
Domestic companies asked to tender were state arms manufacturer Denel as well
as private companies Land Mobility Technologies (LMT), Benoni-based Alvis OMC,
IST Dynamics, Industrial and Automotive Design SA, the Mechanology Design
Bureau (MDB), Advanced Technologies Engineering of Midrand, Grintron and
Intertechnic.
Four South African companies, including Alvis, LMT and MDB had been funded by
Armscor to design local prototypes. All were 8x8 designs and were meant to
carry the Denel LCT-35 turret, fitted with a 35mm cannon.

So it looks like
LMT
OMC
IST Dynamics
Industrial and Automotive Design SA (IADSA)
MDB
ATE
Grintron
Intertechnic
were asked to tender.

4 prototype/concept layout vehicles were funded.
LMT
MDB
OMC
IADSA

The OMC, LMT, and MDB concepts are displayed at Bloemfontein, as seen below.

Does anybody have any further info or pictures of the IADSA vehicle?
 

Attachments

  • BAe-LMT-Mechanology (2).jpg
    BAe-LMT-Mechanology (2).jpg
    153 KB · Views: 201
There are some further pics of the IDAS vehicle rotting at the armor museum in the Ratel Replacement Projects thread. I have found no further information on the vehicle, despite alot of google fu.

The RG-41 interests me. Seems like a long shot though unless a Middle Eastern/Southeast Asian country showed interest.

I have read that the SANDF requires a "light armored recce vehicle" equipped with a medium caliber gun and missiles. Sounds like the French ERBC(?). The unfortunate losses in the CAR and the ongoing campaign in the Congo have convinced them of the need for a proper Eland replacement. The Riookat isn't exactly deployable or suitable for urban environments.
 
Tanner420 said:
There are some further pics of the IDAS vehicle rotting at the armor museum in the Ratel Replacement Projects thread. I have found no further information on the vehicle, despite alot of google fu.
The IADSA entry?

Which pics are those, Tanner?

Can you repost them here please?
 
Reply to post #718:
I don't know if the manufacturing capabilities for the Rooikat are still viable in South Africa, but a 6x6 armoured car, using Rooikat suspension and wheels, with a combat weight of about 15 tons would be very nice. It can be armed with the same 76mm gun as the Rooikat. That gun can be mounted in vehicles as light as 13 tons, without having to resort to a muzzle break. Really "cheap and cheerful" would be the Unimog based car featured earlier in this thread. It would be more reliable and easier to maintain than the Eland 90 and would probably have better off-road mobiltiy as well. For general purpose use in Africa, the 90mm gun fires a larger HE shell than the 76mm piece of the Rooikat, as far as I know.
 
Tanner420 said:
There are some further pics of the IDAS vehicle rotting at the armor museum in the Ratel Replacement Projects thread. I have found no further information on the vehicle, despite alot of google fu.

Is this the hull of the IADSA vehicle?
It isn't one of the 3 vehicles on display, yet was in the pdf pf the various hoefyster vehicles/mockups.

Can you post those other further pics of the vehicle rotting away at the armour museum from the Ratel thread?
I can't find them...
 

Attachments

  • mysteryhoef01.jpg
    mysteryhoef01.jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 656
  • Mysteryhoef02.jpg
    Mysteryhoef02.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 624
Kaiser, I went through that thread, and the only photos I saw were the ones you posted! Sorry, it has been awhile. I feel like quite the idiot!
 
I was doing some further research on the internet last night, and may have discovered some pointers to a few vehicles or programmes on this thread.

On another forum a few years back, a poster mentioned that during the original Ratel replacement phase, the earlier Hoefyster saga, that 4 concept hulls or vehicles were constructed by local companies.

If I'm reading that poster correctly, OMC actually built 2 prototypes, and went as far as blast testing of the second hull. They were probably far ahead of the other companies, certainly in the testing of the product.
Below is a picture I believe is of that second OMC hull that had been blast tested.
This a completely different hull design from the OMC entry that stands alongside the other 2 vehicles at Bloemfontein.
It is different from the 3 vehicles/concepts on display at Bloemfontein, as well as what I assume is the IADS vehicle hull in post above just before this.
 

Attachments

  • blast tested hull.jpg
    blast tested hull.jpg
    167.3 KB · Views: 575
Tanner420 said:
Kaiser, I went through that thread, and the only photos I saw were the ones you posted! Sorry, it has been awhile. I feel like quite the idiot!

Please don't feel that way, Tanner.
Everything is good.
We're all trying to shine a light into the dark corners, and the very fact that you're on the thread is a great contribution toward that.

On that note, here is the second type of Veldskoen vehicle, as seen on page 1 of this thread.
This is Jonathan, whereas the Veldskoen with fewer windows was nicknamed Dawid.
This is only the second picture I've seen of the Jonathan Veldskoen.

From my research yeaterday, it appears this was potentially a very important vehicle, that was tied up in that intrigueing black&white photo of that lineup of vehicles of which some of the middle vehicles which have remained unidentified until this far.
More on this in my next post...
 

Attachments

  • veldsk (2).jpg
    veldsk (2).jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 578
This intrigueing picture below, as posted on page 1, is apparently linked to the Veldskoen.
The same poster on this other forum a few years back gave a description below:

Basically, it was called Project Remark, and was intended to eventually replace both Buffel and Casspir with a single, very advanced vehicle type. This is why the Buffel and Casspir are flanking the candidates.
The candidates were listed as Remark 31 to 34.
The vehicle 3rd from the left has Mercedes Benz running gear, and alongside it (4th from left) the vehicle has mixed SAMIL components.

The Veldskoen was apparently the finished result of Project Remark.

Please note that I obviously cannot verify any of this after all this time, but it certainly is of interest.

Project Remark was announced by Armscor in 1983 as the (ambitious)
replacement project for both the Buffel and Casspir vehicles (it will explain
why they were in the picture) as they were used as performance reference
benchmarks in the evaluation of the various concept vehicles built for the
Remark trials.

Because Sandock Austral had most of the armoured vehicle
business at the time they were supposedly officially "excluded" from the
competition (or so the industry was led to believe at the time) to give other
interested parties with the necessary expertise a chance to compete for the some
of the armoured vehicle business.

When the submissions went in, Sandock Austral was back in the competition, only, now Dorbyl was "fronting" for them and they were the “supporting design and development team" but Armscor fooled nobody into believing that this was no more than a clever way to let Sandock Austral back into the competition via the back door.



With regards to Project Remark it must be mentioned that it was always going
to be a difficult ask to come up with a single cost effective vehicle that could
do what the Buffel and Casspir could do with enhanced blast protection to defeat
the British Mk7 mine (which was a source of major concern at the time and had
caused some serious problems out in the field) but Armscor were going to try and
achieve this objective.

Also, when Project Remark was originally
announced the stated intention was that a "winner" was going to be selected
after a comprehensive and thorough evaluation programme and then as many as
possible of the desirable features from the other competitors that were
considered worth having in the "new all singing and dancing" winner of the
competition that could be incorporated in this vehicle, would be incorporated.


A formal tender was issued, the tender responses were duly received
(including indicative serial production prices) and four potential suppliers
were contracted to build concept demonstrators/evaluation vehicles.

The
four suppliers/teams contracted were: Dorbyl/Sandock Austral, Truckmakers, TFM
and MMI/Van de Wetering Engineering.

The concept vehicles ranged from a
relatively cheap, simple, practical vehicle in the form of the Nyala (31) with
leaf spring suspension to a very expensive and technically much more complex
Dorbyl/Sandock Austral (No 34) vehicle with coil spring mounted hub reduction
axles similar to the Ratel.

The vehicles were then trialled starting in
1985 and evaluated by Armscor/SADF (and all of them performed very well in
trials) and met most of the laid down requirements.


It is a matter
of public record now that Dorbyl/Sandock Austral (for this now read Sandock
Austral only as Dorbyl had “surprisingly” dropped out of the picture after the
trials) were then contracted to continue with development of the new "super
dooper" vehicle which had been spec’ed by Armscor after the conclusion of the
trials.

This vehicle in its morphed form became known as Velskoen – a
complex, very expensive, nose heavy vehicle that seemed to undergo endless
changes and modifications and re-design, in the process swallowing up millions
of Rands ………..and then finally never going into production!

So Project initiation seems to be 1983, with the trials (from which this photo was taken presumably) taking place in 1985.
Between the Buffel and Casspir, I've seen it said that the 4 vehicles, from left to right, are Remark 34, 32, 33, 31.
No idea if this is indeed the case, apart from the Nyala definitely being Remark 31.
It seems as if the vehicle next to the Buffel (second from left, Remark 34?) was then futher developed into the Veldskoen.

Any corrections? Have I got this more or less correct?
 

Attachments

  • earlyMPV's.JPG
    earlyMPV's.JPG
    341.7 KB · Views: 567
Some further info on the K9 Rooikat electric I've found here:

http://talkingransport.blogspot.ie/2013/05/rooikat-on-shelf.html

Please bear in mind that it is not really written from a military perspective, but rather from an electric vehicle point of view, due to the sources area of interest. It contains details of interest, such as history and lack of interest, which is why I'm posting it here.
Dated May 2013.

IN stealth mode, the hybrid Rooikat can tiptoe its 25-ton bulk so quietly
over desert sand that the gunner’s breathing will sound louder in the turret
than the soft whine of the hub motors.


Parked in peace time, the gun’s batteries hold enough charge to
provide power to a small suburb for a night. And when it comes to efficiency,
the old gun can teach the Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius a thing or 400 about
recycling.
In braking mode, the Rooikat’s hub motors return up to 400 kW per
motor back into the system, as the heavy gun slows it down.
Despite its age, the hybrid Rooikat is still seen by all in the
know as a brilliant achievement — and all of it is now gathering dust in a hired
hangar at the Gerotek testing terrain west of Pretoria.

When we visited, the man who managed the development of the
e-drive technology in the Rooikat, Wynand Avenant, was preparing to mothball
the hybrid gun for its last resting place. It was to go to the South African
Armour Corps Museum in Bloemfontein.

Since then, Avenant has informed us that the gun is to stay at
Gerotek for the time being. There was, at the time of printing, no clarity
about what will happen to the old gun, which dates back to the nineties, when
the world’s generals wondered how to apply hybrid drives to army vehicles.
The technology in the Rooikat was first tested in a truck and was
then, as it is now, neither the newest nor the most powerful.
Trains use the same system, with a diesel engine driving an
alternator to turn the axles, while giant mining trucks have, since the late
sixties, been using much higher-powered electric motors to inch up steep
inclines in open-cast mines.
But the system in the hybrid Rooikat represents an experiment by
some of the finest minds then contracted to the SA National Defence Force, to
see just how far they could push the envelope on electric propulsion. The system
they perfected has, these past seven years, been a source of quiet pride for
its designers and still garners respect from those who know their Ohms from
Amperes.

Avenant said his system is powered by an old
diesel engine that has been tuned to sip diesel, and mapped to push its work
rate up to 450 kW and lower its torque in order to drive the alternator at a
constant high speed. The alternator generates the electric current that turns
eight permanent magnet motors, one in each of the one-metre hubs of the Rooikat.

Each hub motor has as much power as a small car (80 kW) and can
handle up to one megawatt of current. To get the bulk of the gun moving in thick
sand is no problem either, as each motor turns with 2 200 N/m of torque from
zero km/h, with the two-speed hydraulic transmissions in low range.
But all this was too late for the Cold War and is still too early
for a world addicted to crude oil.
The hybrid Rooikat has never fired a shot in anger and at the
last armament show, where it was displayed, the world’s buyers showed little
interest.

Avenant has good news, however, as all this benchmark-setting
technology need not be lost to transporters. For the technical wizardry that
drives it has roots that stretch all the way to the Westville campus of the
University of KZN, where the electric propulsion experiments started on a Ford
bakkie in the mid-eighties.
Avenant said Armscor then progressed to test the first electric
truck in 1996.

The truck was driven up Mpumalanga’s steep escarpments, in the
Namib Desert’s shifting sands and in the depths of a snowy winter in Germany.
The system finally proved itself as a tow truck for the 19-ton Ratel. The big
question now is whether transporters can afford Avenant’s gas.
Bearing in mind that thousands of trucks trundle up and down the
N3 each day, burning on average almost a litre of diesel for every kilometre on
the 600 km up run, converting to hybrid trucks could be well-worth the
investment.
 

Attachments

  • rooikat (1).jpg
    rooikat (1).jpg
    380.6 KB · Views: 122
  • rooikat (2).jpg
    rooikat (2).jpg
    478.9 KB · Views: 102
  • rooikat (3).jpg
    rooikat (3).jpg
    433.8 KB · Views: 92
  • rooikat.jpg
    rooikat.jpg
    459.9 KB · Views: 91
  • Rooikat_K9_01.jpg
    Rooikat_K9_01.jpg
    400.3 KB · Views: 149
I originaly registered on this site as Graugrun, a year later it refused that and I had register under a new name (DFS 228), now it only recognizes Graugrun, so Graugun it now is, (MODS - no malicious intent on my part)


I have used KaiserBill's list on the GT gun developments from another site below for reference - in BOLD below (I hope he does not mind):


GT1 - ? (possibly 20 pounder fitted to Centurions as purchased?)
GT2 - 90mm (Eland/Ratel)
GT3 - 105mm L7 for Olifant Mk1A
GT4 - 76mm (Rooikat-76)
GT5 - ?
GT6 - Smoothbore 120mm, upgradeable to 140mm for the TTD
(superseded by GT9)
GT7 - 105mm (GT3 development for Rooikat 105mm)
GT8 - Upgraded 105mm for Olifant Mk1B?
GT9 - Smoothbore 120mm for TTD (3 produced?)
GT10 - ?
GT11 - ?
GT12 - Lightweight low recoil 120mm for the Rooikat 120





This is a brief summery of what IDR (International Defence Review - Janes Defence) reported in May 2004 (and other issues) - I cannot scan and post the full article/s for copyright reasons, however I will post a pic of the GT12 and GT6 for reference and discussion purposes only.

The GT12 is a 120mm - 52 caliber smoothbore gun, with it's trunnion measurements matching those of the GT7. It has a muzzle brake and a bustle autoloader - it is an outgrowth of the GT9 (developed for the Olifant Mark 1B), which itself was preceded by the GT6 (developed in 120 and 140mm versions for the TTD).

Major differences between the GT9 and the GT12 - Materials used for manufacture, recoil systems and barrels. GT12 had an integral pepper-pot muzzle brake, GT9 had none (although provision for a screw on type was made), GT12 had a thinner but higher quality steel barrel, thus weighing less at 2400Kg as opposed to the GT9's 2900Kg. The GT12 has a recoil force of 28t and a recoil length of 500mm, GT9 has a recoil force of 40t and a recoil length of 400mm.

The GT12 is designed to fire the complete range of 120mm NATO full pressure ammunition.

In terms of the GT9 development, the article states that it's development started in 1988, and although it is an outgrowth of the GT6, another IDR article states that the GT6 development also started in 1988 - (with GT6 test firing already having taken place by 1993 according to Janes Defence weekly/JDW - IDR's sister publication). The reason for the two guns (GT6 and GT9) it seems is that the GT6 could handle either 120mm or 140mm smoothbore barrels. However the GT6 was slated to be superseded by the smoothbore GT9, which did not provide the option to upgrade to a 140mm barrel, but in doing so allowed the GT9 to be fully optimised as a 120mm weapon.

The article also indicates the unveiling of the up-gunned version of the Rooikat with the GT12 in late 2004 (which never happened), so development would have obviously preceded then (but not earlier than 1988 as it was in itself an outgrowth of the GT9).

The article also states that the TTD we all saw pics of, was equipped with the GT3 (which we know anyway).


Pic of the GT12 being readied for testing, note the slated type pepper-pot muzzle brake, perhaps the forerunner of the LEO 105mm artillery gun they are still developing (from IDR).


Pic of the GT6 being test fired (from Paratus magazine of all places!).
 

Attachments

  • LIW GT6-01.jpg
    LIW GT6-01.jpg
    514.5 KB · Views: 143
  • Denel GT12 -01.jpg
    Denel GT12 -01.jpg
    181.8 KB · Views: 176

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom