Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 576
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Vickers Valiant on a muddy track :       Barr & Stroud LF 11 gunner sight and the Pilkington PE  Condor commander day/night sight :       Hull amm

Rheinmetall – MBT 130 mm Gun fitted to Challenger 2 LEP   Also shows a larger armour array fitted to the turret. Not sure if this is for LEP or RBSL looking to export or to increas

 

Quote

1. An admission that there had been mixed drivers on Ajax as a delivery programme.
2. These had been an issue on Ajax.
3. Delays on Ajax had had a morale impact on units due to see it as their core equipment.
4. There had likely been attempts to push it into service, regardless.
5. It turned out to be unrealistic to deliver to units a piece of equipment that still had issues.
6. AM Knighton seems to be saying, when he says, "when we better understand", that this is a relatively on-going issue (hearing was scant days ago).
7. If PS has to "write a letter" to the PAC about this, this is not a mundane issue.
8. AM says that any such letter will be, "a revised assessment of the programme - meaning that current assessment is no longer valid.
 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK to reassess Ajax programme
 

Quote

UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) procurement chiefs are reassessing the GBP5.3 billion (USD6.7 billion) Ajax programme after the first batch of production standard armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) was found not to be ready for delivery.


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/29cf9003-fcc5-4c72-af61-e7a41a7aa603

The rumour is that the Spanish built vehicles have shocking quality control (including hull welds) resulting in the Welsh facility having to disassemble, fix, reassemble and then re-validate each unit.
Santa Bárbara recently had problems with the Piranha V-based Dragon 8x8 and a Spanish defence magazine says the VCZAP Castor (ASCOD-Pizarro engineering variant) prototype is overweight and delayed.

Despite this Desider Magazine reports that the first 2 rebuilt Ares have been accepted for service:

Success as AJAX completes acceptance testing
 

Quote

Progress with AJAX testing has continued despite the challenging circumstances brought by COVID-19. The first two Ares platforms that will provide reconnaissance support have recently passed general acceptance testing and will shortly be delivered to the Household Cavalry Regiment.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/889347/June-desider-online.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

It is because there was this realisation that the programme was not ambitious enough. It needed a smoothbore gun. It needed the ability to put a missile down that barrel to overmatch Armata, as you rightly describe. It needed its protection levels to be significantly enhanced.


https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/652/pdf/

Army apparently wants CR2 to fire gun-launched ATGM and have significantly enhanced protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that GLATGM started to go out of fashion with the rise of APS systems and advance with the ballistic computers and ammo. Sure they still bring a capability which is useful (not sure if against T-14 though) but is that worth of the investment and the development effort? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BaronTibere said:

Ignoring the problem of APS the LAHAT is designed for top attack is it not? Theoretically an Armata can be hull down with no exposed crew meaning some form of top attack would be required to hit the crew compartment.

 

But top attack missile would hit most likely the unmanned turret instead of the crew compartment (even if we completely ignore the countermeasures T-14 posses). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

Ignoring the problem of APS the LAHAT is designed for top attack is it not? Theoretically an Armata can be hull down with no exposed crew meaning some form of top attack would be required to hit the crew compartment.

 

afaik LAHAT is just a bog standard 105mm ATGM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t understand how they believe that Lahat is gonna give them overmatch vs the T-14. Lahat may have a very good maximum range (8km) and top attack but its not fire and forget and the missile is fairly slow, meaning that the tank has to be exposed to enemy fire during a long time. If the gunner loses visual on the target, the missile is useless.
How its going to go in a theoretical scenario? Cr2 spots an advancing T-14 at about 5km and fires Lahat. T-14 APS detects the missile and the point of origin, Cr2 turret is then spotted by the gunner. T-14 loads Sokol, locks the target and fires. T-14 deploys smoke and countermeasures and reverses to cover while Sokol flies on his own and hits the Cr2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lahat can be detected only when target is illuminated by laser (at the end of the flight). And effectiveness of Armata's APS is questionable. It looks like old Soviet Drozd APS, and we don't know if it can be effective against top attack missiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it mentioned that "missile" could simply mean a tank round projectile.
In English a missile is "an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon".

However the CR2 Streetfighter concept with Brimstone launcher shows the Army is interested in under-heavy-armour ATGM ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Lahat can be detected only when target is illuminated by laser (at the end of the flight). And effectiveness of Armata's APS is questionable. It looks like old Soviet Drozd APS, and we don't know if it can be effective against top attack missiles.

I didn't mean a hardkill interception. Just by popping smoke the missile is useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover you have to try really hard to find a spot where you have a 5 km line of sight in Europe. That's possible basically only in deserts or if the enemy is completely stupid. 

 

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

And effectiveness of Armata's APS is questionable. It looks like old Soviet Drozd APS, and we don't know if it can be effective against top attack missiles.

 

The Drozd-like APS rockets are not meant for top attack missile defence. On the turret there are 24 smaller vertical launcher tubes likely intended for that (aside of another 24 rotating smoke grenade launchers). What they atually launch is another question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

×
×
  • Create New...