Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

The whole mobility angle seems mysterious. I don't think it would be impossible for the "new" build standard to run at 1500hp in the CR3, and they keep dropping lines about improved mobility. The 60mph figure has ruffled some feathers and confused a lot but with 1500hp it doesn't seem that unreasonable for an unrestricted road speed, one that will likely not be the final top speed anyways (anecdotes say the current cr2 can hit 80kph on roads if pushed, so a 16kph boost with new suspension and more HP doesn't seem that far fetched, certainly not for a click-bait headline).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CV12 at 1500 hp is a perfect enough engine. Achieving 60 mph makes me feel like the context was that they took the tank and ran it off the ramp on HMS QE. It's just impossible for CR3 especially if its got APS/armor packages on it. The fastest tracked vehicles in the world can just about exceed such speeds reliably but are all infinitely lighter with better hp/t and special designed tracks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is, CR3 seems to be more of a “proof of concept” vehicle than even a pre-production prototype. Hopefully to refinement of this new turret goes smoother than WCSP & AJAX. At least the armament itself is mature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Weird that they’re considering a DU round for their new gun. IIRC, uranium (alloys) work better at 1500-1600 mps, and the M829A4 is designed to get those velocities out of an L44 barrel, not an L55. 

The further velocities you acquire with DU at those speeds is simply diminishing returns, you don't suddenly lose penetration. A4 will simply just go faster and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This news is a bit old but posting now I have time:

UK outlines future anti-armour requirements

 

Quote

BGOAA is split across four areas: a Close-In Self Defence (CISD) capability, a long-range Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) capability akin to the Swingfire system of the past, and mounted and dismounted Close Combat Anti-Armour Weapons (CCAAW), which will form the successor to the in-service Javelin.
 

The project aims to deliver commonality between effectors and launchers to drive down costs while allowing a smaller, more dispersed British force to achieve overmatch against peer threats into the 2050s.

Commenting on the existing capabilities BGOAA is seeking to replace, British Army Lieutenant Colonel Mike Baxter, S01 for Light and Medium Forces, said: “These systems were designed in the 90s and 00s, typically as dismounted systems and not optimised for fire-on-the-move. One could also suggest that, during the lifetime of these systems, they have not really faced a significant armour threat.

 

“But armour or threats that have to be engaged by these weapons systems have been present throughout that time, and the scale and the complexity of use of those systems have probably exceeded the designers’ thoughts when they first brought those systems into use.”

Key to developing the four BGOAA project lines is developing a Ministry of Defence-owned architecture for effectors and fire control systems that would allow anti-armour systems to be rapidly upgraded to maintain their relevance.
 

Baxter said: “BGOAA takes the experience of the last few years with the aim of providing accurate, long-range engagement capabilities down to the section level against armoured and non-armoured targets, It also keeps in mind the potential for state-on-state or peer-on-peer conflict and the great power competition that seems to be making a comeback in world dynamics”.
 

“We still need to have lethality against armoured systems because, although not all may be top of the range vehicles, there is a prevalence and a proliferation of armour, right down to some relatively less well-developed nations.”
 

De-risking is currently underway on technologies to enable a new generation of seekers, systems that can defeat active protection systems, new launchers and warheads.

Dstl is also looking at critical enablers, including smaller, wider spectrum, low-cost sensors; non-line of sight capabilities; third-party handoff of targeting and fire control.

Dstl is also exploring how modular systems can allow for launchers and missiles to be diffused across platforms from trucks, the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle, the Ajax family of vehicles and uncrewed systems.
 

BGOAA is currently in the pre-concept phase, with Dstl aiming to down-select from a pool of concepts over the next six month and generate a shortlist of ideas that would then undergo detailed analysis likely from 2022/23 onwards.


Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) - Long Range ATGM

Proposals by Thales, MBDA and Lockheed Martin using Brimstone missiles:

Thales:

2ZoZnq0.jpg

"Dstl also showed a concept developed by Thales showing an Ares vehicle equipped with a remote turret that does not protrude into the vehicle’s hull and carried eight missiles."

 


MBDA:

 

X5D2GyA.jpg

NXjpC2E.jpg

 

"During a presentation on the capability, Dstl showcased concepts from MBDA detailing an Ares vehicle carrying eight Brimstone missiles on a swing launcher as well as a Boxer module carrying 16 Brimstone missiles on one side of the vehicle as well as its previously shown concept of a TheMIS UGV carrying a Brimstone launcher."


 

Lockheed Martin:

 

BItRZ9p.jpg

7SvtT66.jpg

DUOEjfQ.png

 

"As well as devising the Boxer module, Lockheed Martin has also developed a concept for an ISO container filled with VLS tubes and carried on a MAN SV truck. This MAN SV-based system would be able to carry 50 plus missiles." - Boxer module can carry 16 missiles


CCAAW – mounted and dismounted effects

 

Javelin ATGM replacement. Supposedly Spike 2 has been earmarked for this. The Army was waiting to see what the US did with Javelin.

Sources:
https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/
https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

UK Warrior upgrade cancellation makes sale of CT40 cannons likely

 

Quote

Surplus CTA International 40 mm CT40 cannons worth over GBP70 million (USD97.7 million) are expected to be put up for sale by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) following the cancellation of the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) upgrade programme in the UK government’s 22 March Defence Command Paper.

 

There had been speculation that the cannons could be reused and installed in Boxer mechanised infantry vehicles to create an IFV variant for the British Army, but on 19 April the service told Jane s it had no intention to develop such a vehicle.
 

“There are no current plans to commission Boxer into an armoured infantry role,” said a British Army spokesperson. “We are assessing potential lethality options for the Boxer.”

 

 

Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-warrior-upgrade-cancellation-makes-sale-of-ct40-cannons-likely
 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


Pretty much what I thought would happen. The Army dumping CT40. Not even keeping them as spares for Ajax is a telling sign.
I can see Rheinmetall pushing a British-ised Lance turret.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the rumoured problems with the Lance turret in Australia, and that the AJAX turret started life as a Lance turret, I’d say an uncrewed/remote turret would be more likely. 
 

Isn’t there a Kongsberg production line in the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Given the rumoured problems with the Lance turret in Australia, and that the AJAX turret started life as a Lance turret, I’d say an uncrewed/remote turret would be more likely. 

 

Which problems does the Lance turret have in Australia? Ajax's turret is a different story with most issues being self-made (as far as I've heard, most of them were related to CTA gun and its ammunition handling system).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Rheinmetall pushing a British-ised Lance turret.

Yes.  Given that there is a LANCE turreted module already (AUS) and that it looks like Germany will adopt it to, then RBSL (Rheinmetall Baes) will definitely offer that.  Surely it is obvious to all (except the ancient foe) that CTA is a dead end?  A solution without a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a total waste to dump both the CTA40s and all the money they spent on the Warrior CSP turret. Now AJAX will just be another orphaned gun system for the UK. Also wonder who they think is going to buy all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DIADES said:

Yes, what problems?  Supporting evidence?  And no, the Ajax turret is not lance based anyway.

I did say “rumoured” problems - so, no supporting evidence. From what I’ve heard, climbing overall turret weight is problematic, as is integration of APS. 
 

The Lance origins of the Ajax turret is well known, as well as being a factor in GD offering an entirely new turret for their bid in the Australian Land 400-3 program.

 

AL30rPp.jpg


https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/british-army-medium-weight-capability/ajax/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Korvette said:

Ah yes, 'stealth'. Vickers threw a kitchen sink of marketing at this thing.

 

The Abrams is probably stealthier with its bouncing angles from a direct front ping.

Doubt that. While the Challenger 2 certainly isn't a stealth tank like the Versuchsträger Gesamtschutz, the Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz or the Démonstrateur Furtif à Chenille, it is more than decade newer than the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2. Aside of the fact that the British engineers had access to much more accurate computer simulations (or any at all) compared to the developer of these earlier tanks can make a big difference. Modern paint (or rather coatings) also has some impact on signature (IR, UV & radar).

 

However overall the difference in radar signature - specifically in regards to the detection distance by high-resolution military systems - will be minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat sanguine on radar stealth for ground vehicles.  Aircraft stealth is a formidable engineering problem, of course.  But consider that aircraft are very often being illuminated by radars against the backdrop of the sky, which might as well be pitch black as far as a radar is concerned.  The contrast is nearly perfect.  Aircraft have to worry about being lit up with many different frequencies of radar waves too, which makes the problem harder because not all RAM works well against all frequencies, and different frequencies respond differently to different sized features on the aircraft.

 

A ground vehicle is, well, on the ground.  It's hiding out amongst a bunch of ground clutter, so its RCS reduction will have to be somewhat less extreme for it to blend in vs. against a cold, featureless sky.  Furthermore, the range of frequencies used for fire control and detection radars against ground targets is much smaller; typically millimetric-wave.

So I suspect that useful reduction in detection and targeting range against the sorts of radars seen on attack helicopters is possible for tanks without anything like the extreme shaping seen on stealth aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

I'm somewhat sanguine on radar stealth for ground vehicles.  Aircraft stealth is a formidable engineering problem, of course.  But consider that aircraft are very often being illuminated by radars against the backdrop of the sky, which might as well be pitch black as far as a radar is concerned.  The contrast is nearly perfect.  Aircraft have to worry about being lit up with many different frequencies of radar waves too, which makes the problem harder because not all RAM works well against all frequencies, and different frequencies respond differently to different sized features on the aircraft.

 

A ground vehicle is, well, on the ground.  It's hiding out amongst a bunch of ground clutter, so its RCS reduction will have to be somewhat less extreme for it to blend in vs. against a cold, featureless sky.  Furthermore, the range of frequencies used for fire control and detection radars against ground targets is much smaller; typically millimetric-wave.

So I suspect that useful reduction in detection and targeting range against the sorts of radars seen on attack helicopters is possible for tanks without anything like the extreme shaping seen on stealth aircraft.

 

It would be interesting to see what effect has the old-school camouflage with branches, some wood lathes or grass in the radar appearance of the tank. It may not be needed to hide from the radar. It may be enough just not to look like a tank on the radar and for that it certainly helps to have sort of random signature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

IIRC, this was related to the smoother shape of the turret (less protuberances) compared to the previous British MBTs.

 

 

Maybe? But then the CR1 would have the same signature without the cyclops eye TISH hood on the top of the gun that is flat since it pretty much carriers the same slopes/design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Doubt that. While the Challenger 2 certainly isn't a stealth tank like the Versuchsträger Gesamtschutz, the Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz or the Démonstrateur Furtif à Chenille, it is more than decade newer than the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2. Aside of the fact that the British engineers had access to much more accurate computer simulations (or any at all) compared to the developer of these earlier tanks can make a big difference. Modern paint (or rather coatings) also has some impact on signature (IR, UV & radar).

 

However overall the difference in radar signature - specifically in regards to the detection distance by high-resolution military systems - will be minor.

The computer simulations isn't really fully necessary to design something stealthy, i.e the F117 is a paper and ruler designed plane but the tank itself doesn't evolve in shape far from the CR1, its signature would definitely not be improved in a conceivable way for an advantage.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
       
       
       
       
       
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?
       
       

    • 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...