CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

not_observed

Old-Salt
Don't take the demonstrator CR2 as how things will be inside the tank etc etc. It's literally a proof of concept to show that 120mm Smoothbore can be mounted on CR2 and fired.
 
General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defense Staff, said during the hearing in response to a question from Member of Parliament Mark Francois on the intended date for initial operational capability for Challenger 2 LEP:


“I think the requirement is now pretty clear, and that is one of the reasons why Challenger 2 is taking a long time. 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. So the requirement has evolved. I think the Army now has a very clear idea of what it needs. The trick now is to find the resources to get behind what it needs.”
LAHAT is a bit of a blind alley IMHO so do they have something else in mind?
 

LAHAT is a bit of a blind alley IMHO so do they have something else in mind?
Sounds like somebody has been briefing the boss BS...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TamH70

MIA

TamH70

MIA
Sourcing missiles from a Ukrainian company? Not sure that's a good idea especially from a logistics POV. Equally, as the idea is to harmonise logistics with the rest of NATO selecting a propriety missile sort of buggers that.
Ukraine is sort of affiliated with NATO, isn't it? Not fully or they would not have allowed Mother Russia to nick the Crimean Peninsula but sort of.

Note that I didn't say that it was a good idea, just "could be". And the Ukrainians could be touting for business with the rest of NATO - it looks like a really useful capability which comes without the ickiness of dealing with the Israelis and hence avoiding the woke melt left twats having a twitterstorm.
 
Ukraine is sort of affiliated with NATO, isn't it? Not fully or they would not have allowed Mother Russia to nick the Crimean Peninsula but sort of.
Is production secure though? That was more my concern. Its not good having a capability, if the production facility gets over run in the first half hour of a war. Even if its not over run, having artillery salvos land in its car park tends to limit production out put.
 

TamH70

MIA
Also, 125mm?
Ah, well, the 125mm version is called the "KOMBAT", and later on, in the article it says:

"The Luch Design Bureau has developed one more tank gun round, designated KONUS, which is optimized for 120mm standard NATO tank guns. The KONUS guided missile is built as a unitary round of the same size as NATO standard tank gun munitions, and it can be loaded into the tank gun’s carousel-type automatic loader together with all other round types used by the gun. The KONUS can be reconfigured for NATO-standard 120mm guns, which could help it to find markets in NATO countries and also would boost its export potential. ‘Westernized’ KONUS has already been tested on the T-84-120 YATAGAN main battle tank with the KBM2 L50 smoothbore gun of the 120mm standard NATO caliber. "

Which said KONUS is the one I was referring to.

Also, there are such things as licensing deals and so on. British Wasteofspace Systems could be contracted to make the KONUS for us.
 

LAHAT is a bit of a blind alley IMHO so do they have something else in mind?
Why ? Surely the ability for MBTs to engage targets not only hull down but turret down in the modern environment is an excellent idea ? If targets can be engaged from complete cover from view & fire at ranges of up to 8km that sounds like as a serious boost to the capability of our frankly tiny MBT fleet ?
 
The thing is, most GLATGM are actually a bit rubbish - they compromise on charge diameter (compared to something like Jav) to get them in the bore, and usually rely on an operator-in-the-loop guidance mechanism like SACLOS or laser beam-riding, which means you really need to be static to fire.

If you really needed to punch much further than you can with fin (and I’m not convinced GLATGM actually buys you much more range when you take into account PID distances etc), you’d probably be better off with a dedicated tank destroyer to complement the MBTs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Why ? Surely the ability for MBTs to engage targets not only hull down but turret down in the modern environment is an excellent idea ? If targets can be engaged from complete cover from view & fire at ranges of up to 8km that sounds like as a serious boost to the capability of our frankly tiny MBT fleet ?
Off the top of my head:
Cost, reduction of main gun ammo, logistics, training (training of the tech's as well), prelevance of anti-missile systems and don't we already have that capability with Exactor?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Off the top of my head:
Cost, reduction of main gun ammo, logistics, training (training of the tech's as well), prelevance of anti-missile systems and don't we already have that capability with Exactor?
Great missile, shít trailer.

I keep coming back to something like this:

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Of course, you're back to the question of whether an MBT is the best thing to use to kill MBTs in large numbers.

The MBT provides flexibility - that's its USP. But ripple-fire from a vehicle such as that tank destroyer, or a pass by a Typhoon/other aircraft loaded with Brimstone is a different matter.
 
Great missile, shít trailer.
Thinking about it just now, how the hell are you meant to shoot and scoot with that trailer?

I keep coming back to something like this:

I know what you mean. Earlier in the thread I mentioned an idea for an AFV with vertical launch Brimestones, which you could do palletised loading with. Such a fit seems entirely doable. Cost (as it always is), however, seems to be the unobtainable requirement.

It seems to me, with the falling size of the armed forces, that we need to pay more to retain our ability to murder the enemy in detail. The technology is there and available to provide serious firepower and mobility in excess of the current formations. It would be a next gen fighting force. It's jsut we're trying not to pay for it, which leaves us trying to buff the last generation of combat forces up to a brilliant shine, but we're still hampered by falling numbers.
 
Off the top of my head:
Cost, reduction of main gun ammo, logistics, training (training of the tech's as well), prelevance of anti-missile systems and don't we already have that capability with Exactor?

CR2 upgrade is scheduled to cost somewhere about £3.4m a tank and will cost how per unit when completed ?

So we remove an handful of main gun DF rounds from the tank to replace with an IDF round thereby preventing a very expensive asset with very limited availability being seen by a peer or near peer enemy at markedly increased range. That's a downside ? How is killing your enemy unseen from further away than the enemy expects a downside ?

We could go for the Ukrainian system which boasts of not needing the laser on target until the last few seconds, thro I would strongly suggest the Israeli's can already do that with LAHAT, they just don't tell anyone.

Logistics. Yeah. Let's be honest. Logistics in a peer or near peer environment is frankly largely imaginary at the moment in the British Army.

Exactor. Mounted in what AFV ? Something big, heavy and chunky armoured so able to survive where MBTS survive ?
 
Last edited:
Top