• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

As a non-tankie sort of person, don't all the bolted/nailled/glued -on bits get knocked off during operations? Presumably this is a trials vehicle, so all that 'stuff' will be integrated somehow, which implies there is lots of spare space inside and many available nooks and crannies for hiding the 'extra stuff' externally. Errrrm . . .
None of the new stuff can be hidden; sensors, sights and hardkill need to be external. You bring up a good point 'though; the more stuff dangling outside the more chance a HEAT round will hit it and detonate. There was a missile kill on a Turkish up-armoured M60 recently where the missile would have flown by without the array sticking out. Historically the early HEAT rounds had problems fuzing correctly but would detonate on hitting tow chains, MG mounts etc.
 
None of the new stuff can be hidden; sensors, sights and hardkill need to be external. You bring up a good point 'though; the more stuff dangling outside the more chance a HEAT round will hit it and detonate. There was a missile kill on a Turkish up-armoured M60 recently where the missile would have flown by without the array sticking out. Historically the early HEAT rounds had problems fuzing correctly but would detonate on hitting tow chains, MG mounts etc.
None of the new stuff that we can see - there's also supposed to be a bunch of new stuff inside as well.

I would expect a finished version to have the systems presented (if chosen and paid for) to be faired in a bit more neatly to avoid snags, steps and general battlefield detritus impeding function.

Although it does raise a question: the new panoramic sight, the Sagem Paseo, is entirely external, mounted forward from the original sight and pretty much on top of the gunner's sight housing. while it has some ballistic protection, I fear that the damage it could sustain would be significant since the cameras are in there as well. Previous designs hid the cameras below 'deck' level to protect them. The mirror assembly, while expensive, was not so costly as the optics and the imaging devices. As I understand it. I wonder what is driving these external mounts?
 
None of the new stuff that we can see - there's also supposed to be a bunch of new stuff inside as well.

I would expect a finished version to have the systems presented (if chosen and paid for) to be faired in a bit more neatly to avoid snags, steps and general battlefield detritus impeding function.

Although it does raise a question: the new panoramic sight, the Sagem Paseo, is entirely external, mounted forward from the original sight and pretty much on top of the gunner's sight housing. while it has some ballistic protection, I fear that the damage it could sustain would be significant since the cameras are in there as well. Previous designs hid the cameras below 'deck' level to protect them. The mirror assembly, while expensive, was not so costly as the optics and the imaging devices. As I understand it. I wonder what is driving these external mounts?
External EO/IR frees up a lot of room inside the turret compared to the current ‘internal’ CPS - which you’re going to need if you want to fit additional capability like DAS (whose onboard processing and control LRUs are not insubstantial).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would expect a finished version to have the systems presented (if chosen and paid for) to be faired in a bit more neatly to avoid snags, steps and general battlefield detritus impeding function.
More than likely. Here's a Previous example, on, oddly, a Challenger 1 upgrade package. The tank is the Al Hussein Hybrid Turret:

Original Proof of concept model:


Here's the, for want of a better term, 'Production' model:


The CITV is looking much better. That said there are some questions about the CITV mount, as I've only seen a few Ajax pictures with it fitted, most have an OHWS in that spot.

Looking at those pictures also raises a question, where's the metrological mast on the Black Night?
 
Looks green in that photo - it is, as the name suggests, actually black, which makes it look most odd, as though the QM had run out of NATO Green......
 
Looks green in that photo - it is, as the name suggests, actually black, which makes it look most odd, as though the QM had run out of NATO Green......
If I was a marketing bloke faced with that comment my response would be:
"Deep bronze green, old boy, throwback to the First tank Vickers produced for the Army, The Vickers Medium!"*


In reality it's likely just the camera and lighting conditions.

*I am aware that the tank pictured is a Mk.II, and thus not the first tank produced. But the excuse stands, as most people can't tell a Vickers No1, from a Vickers Mk.I or a Vickers Mk.1.
 
I wonder if we’ll see a resurgence in gas turbines with increasing interest in electric or hybrid vehicles? Generation for a series hybrid system with a reasonably large battery buffer would seem more in keeping with a turbines characteristics.
I can't see how this isn't the long term answer... particularly if it leads to multiple, electric motor, drive wheel assemblies rather than a big drive cog at one end - no more need for gearbox or transmission. I'm sure that some clever person could also cleverly distribute the batteries to form part of the armour/mine protection. Free up all that space in the hull and we could end up with a Merkeva like compartment in the rear

Finally, the battery reserve in a hybrid design would be interesting tactically - either give you a KERS like short term power boost to improve speed and mobility, or on the other hand would potentially reduce the heat and noise signature for an advance to contact - it might only need to operate under battery power for ten minutes at full speed, but ten minutes of 'stealth approach' could easily be battle winning.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how this isn't the long term answer... particularly if it leads to multiple, electric motor, drive wheel assemblies than a big drive cog at one end - no more need for gearbox or transmission. I'm sure that some clever person could also cleverly distribute the batteries to form part of the armour/mine protection. Free up all that space in the hull and we could end up with a Merkeva like compartment in the rear

Finally, the battery reserve in a hybrid design would be interesting tactically - either give you either a KERS like short term power boost to improve speed and mobility, or on the other hand would potentially reduce the heat and noise signature for an advance to contact - it might only need to operate under battery power for ten minutes at full speed, but ten minutes of 'stealth approach' could easily be battle winning.
Distributed powertrain systems are a BIG potential win in terms of AFVs. They really do open the door to common platforms for all applications - no more worrying over the MBT having the engine at the back, the IFV or SPG having the engine at the front, and so on.
 
If I was a marketing bloke faced with that comment my response would be:
"Deep bronze green, old boy, throwback to the First tank Vickers produced for the Army, The Vickers Medium!"*


In reality it's likely just the camera and lighting conditions.

*I am aware that the tank pictured is a Mk.II, and thus not the first tank produced. But the excuse stands, as most people can't tell a Vickers No1, from a Vickers Mk.I or a Vickers Mk.1.
It's nothing to do with lighting - it's actually black, nowhere near bronze green:

IMG_5152.jpg
 
Union jack you say...


But that's just a CGI effort, no one would be dumb enough to ...


...oh.
Pretty sure the latter was a heat applied wrapper rather than a paint job? Underneath it's a Dutch vehicle I seem to recall.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top