CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
Define 'cost'. A quick Google and Wikipedia give the cost per round of Brimstone as £175k (2015 prices). Unit cost of an M1 Abrams (chosen because it can still be had in quantity) is almost $9m apiece (2016 prices).

So, you get around 50 Brimstones for one M1. Hellfire, according to t'internet is $115k apiece, Javelin is a little less. That's almost 80 for one M1.

Yes, you need a vehicle to put it all on, so one-for-one comparisons and my clumsy round-it-up maths don't give the full picture, but if the singular requirement is to be able to kill 'x' many MBTs (where 'x' is a large number) then the capability which can be acquired for the same money is markedly different.
Or if you fancy something a bit more substantial than PowerPoint, this was done six years ago:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite but either makes a hell of a lot of sense from where we are in terms of capability.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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 ?
Exactor was originally mounted on an M113 - as acquired directly from the Israelis. It was us that then had the daft idea of sticking it on a rickety trailer.
 
Thinking about it just now, how the hell are you meant to shoot and scoot with that trailer?



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.
I'd like to see a Warrior Mortar veh converted to fire Brimstone rather than CR2 RM fire missiles through it's Main Armament.
 
Define 'cost'. A quick Google and Wikipedia give the cost per round of Brimstone as £175k (2015 prices). Unit cost of an M1 Abrams (chosen because it can still be had in quantity) is almost $9m apiece (2016 prices).

So, you get around 50 Brimstones for one M1. Hellfire, according to t'internet is $115k apiece, Javelin is a little less. That's almost 80 for one M1.

Yes, you need a vehicle to put it all on, so one-for-one comparisons and my clumsy round-it-up maths don't give the full picture, but if the singular requirement is to be able to kill 'x' many MBTs (where 'x' is a large number) then the capability which can be acquired for the same money is markedly different.

Quite but either makes a hell of a lot of sense from where we are in terms of capability.
We have the capability to launch DMD, Hellfire, PV IV, soon SPEAR 3.

There’s footage, I don’t think it’s available open source of a ripple firing of Brimstone over Libya, I am told if you go to RAF Spad, ask nicely you can see it. (Magic Mushroom mentioned about the attack a few years ago).


In the not too distant Future we will have AH64E passing targeting information to Protector, which will engage multiple armoured contacts from 50,000 ft plus.
 
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 ?
This assumes several things.
1: The round will hit. How are you going to to designate a target at 8km? You'll need some form of external target acquisition gear. That now needs to be linked into the fire control systems of the tank. Equally with Multiple AMS systems in development, especially in Russia there is a significant chance your missile (or your remote designation equipment) will get intercepted before the missile locks on and strikes.
2: The round will kill. See the earlier comments about warheads. Generally modern heat Warheads are 6in in size. This is the optimum calibre. the main gun is 5in.
How many rounds are we currently carrying, if we've gotten down to the mid to low 30's I'd start worrying about loosing much more space, especially, as we've lost the dual purpose functionality of HESH, so will need Fin, HEAT and HE (which were pictured earlier by the RHM turret).

Exactor. Mounted in what AFV ? Something big, heavy and chunky armoured so able to survive where MBTS survive ?
I rather think, if you've got 8km range, you don't need to be trading shots turret to turret, doubly so if you've got indirect fire capabilities. The armour can therefore be lighter, and cheaper.

There used to be the idea that the tank had to carry every weapon on the battlefield, to meet every situation. This led to the famous land battleships such as the A1E1 Independent or the T-35. They were utter disasters due to the desire to cram those weapons in. The most successful approach was to give the tank one weapon, that could provide limited capability outside its normal role, and leave the fancy shite to the specialists.

Define 'cost'. A quick Google and Wikipedia give the cost per round of Brimstone as £175k (2015 prices). Unit cost of an M1 Abrams (chosen because it can still be had in quantity) is almost $9m apiece (2016 prices).
You could mount 40 odd Brimestones on an AFV. Each reload is thus 700K. Even halving that is a significant cost, with each volley from a troop costing over 1mil. Granted you'll be rendering a tank battalion combat ineffective with each volley. That's what I meant by having the technology available at current to provide utterly devastating levels of firepower. But we need to pay for it with £££.


Let me introduce you to the P.35 (those of you what read my book will know where this is going).

Able to jump 10ft in the air, so could easily vault about 80% of obstacles it is likely to encounter on a cross country drive. It could also run as a hovercraft for a few miles over truly horrible terrain. There were no rockets involved, and the vehicle was auto stabilised. So literally all the driver needed to do was press, and hold the jump button to vault over the obstacle. Otherwise it drove like a normal car. This particular version has a rack of three Vigilant's fitted, along with an armoured cab. The idea was to develop the technology in this vehicle, then expand it to the entire Army Fleet as technology improved. Basically the long term plan was hover tanks.

The program was in three stages. First of which was component testing and constructing working sub assemblies. This stage was completed successfully, and all calculations were within perimeters. Essentially we were on course for getting light scout's with the abilities described above. This was with 1966 levels of technology!

It got shitcanned simply due to cost.

Technology has significantly moved on since then, and costs have come down (although would still be higher than an ordinary equivalent). Thus I think the design is entirely doable today... But no, it costs too much!
 
I'd like to see a Warrior Mortar veh converted to fire Brimstone rather than CR2 RM fire missiles through it's Main Armament.
Isn't Warrior becoming old and fatigued? Although if memory serves that was the plan with conversion of excess chassis being converted to the Battlefield Support Vehicle, many years ago?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
We have the capability to launch DMD, Hellfire, PV IV, soon SPEAR 3.

There’s footage, I don’t think it’s available open source of a ripple firing of Brimstone over Libya, I am told if you go to RAF Spad, ask nicely you can see it. (Magic Mushroom mentioned about the attack a few years ago).


In the not too distant Future we will have AH64E passing targeting information to Protector, which will engage multiple armoured contacts from 50,000 ft plus.
This.

Another point to make/perhaps being missed is that we only tend to think of overwatch in terms of something less than an MBT. Striker is a case in point - it provided overwatch for CVR(T). There's nothing to say that MBTs can't have overwatch, too.

Back to the question of whether the solution to killing lots of MBTs is lots of MBTs.

Which is very different to 'Do we still need MBTs?' Personally, I think we do. But insert something here about 'effects-based working'.
You could mount 40 odd Brimestones on an AFV. Each reload is thus 700K. Even halving that is a significant cost, with each volley from a troop costing over 1mil. Granted you'll be rendering a tank battalion combat ineffective with each volley. That's what I meant by having the technology available at current to provide utterly devastating levels of firepower. But we need to pay for it with £££.
Yes. But.

You're going to be damn lucky if a single MBT, even with significant overmatch, achieves 40 kills before being itself killed. That's one MBT at £severalmillion. A £700k reload still represents superb value for money.
I'd like to see a Warrior Mortar veh converted to fire Brimstone rather than CR2 RM fire missiles through it's Main Armament.
Which Warrior mortar vehicle? We're still using 432s.
 
Isn't Warrior becoming old and fatigued? Although if memory serves that was the plan with conversion of excess chassis being converted to the Battlefield Support Vehicle, many years ago?
Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle (ABSV) was essentially descoped a while back.

Best we might get to replace Bulldog are some surplus WR1 hulls with the turret ring plated over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This.

Another point to make/perhaps being missed is that we only tend to think of overwatch in terms of something less than an MBT. Striker is a case in point - it provided overwatch for CVR(T). There's nothing to say that MBTs can't have overwatch, too.

Back to the question of whether the solution to killing lots of MBTs is lots of MBTs.

Which is very different to 'Do we still need MBTs?' Personally, I think we do. But insert something here about 'effects-based working'.

Yes. But.

You're going to be damn lucky if a single MBT, even with significant overmatch, achieves 40 kills before being itself killed. That's one MBT at £severalmillion. A £700k reload still represents superb value for money.

Which Warrior mortar vehicle? We're still using 432s.
I agree we need a credible MBT.

Overwatch for Boxer, Ajax etc, potentially could be 3 protector, with enough DMBII to make anyone’s day emotional, with a pair of F35b providing top cover.

Any GBAD would have very short life spans, especially if they are operated by the same “russian mercs“ in the ME.
 
I agree we need a credible MBT.

Overwatch for Boxer, Ajax etc, potentially could be 3 protector, with enough DMBII to make anyone’s day emotional, with a pair of F35b providing top cover.

Any GBAD would have very short life spans, especially if they are operated by the same “russian mercs“ in the ME.
Protector?

Operated by the RAF, and launched from a hard runway waaaaay back out of TBM range providing intimate support for 2Lt Innes-Tanque’s troop, which is moving through close terrain in winter weather?

I’m ever the optimist for novel solutions, but I just don’t see it working in practice.

Especially as we’re now forecasting the cost of 16 Protector to be a shade under £1Bn...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I agree we need a credible MBT.

Overwatch for Boxer, Ajax etc, potentially could be 3 protector, with enough DMBII to make anyone’s day emotional, with a pair of F35b providing top cover.

Any GBAD would have very short life spans, especially if they are operated by the same “russian mercs“ in the ME.
Why does the overwatch need to be airborne?
 
And we moved to a trailer which barely supports. :-D
As a UOR for Afghanistan, it only needed to be on a trolley that could be re-positioned from within a compound.

I believe there is work ongoing to make it mobile for contingency ops - best guess would be on the back of a JLTV...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AJAX as an alternative IFV to Warrior would probably double the cost of WCSP production - and that’s before you consider the NRE of developing a section variant.

Pointing to the original ASCOD IFV doesn’t help - AJAX is more or less a new vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Protector?

Operated by the RAF, and launched from a hard runway waaaaay back out of TBM range providing intimate support for 2Lt Innes-Tanque’s troop, which is moving through close terrain in winter weather?

I’m ever the optimist for novel solutions, but I just don’t see it working in practice.

Especially as we’re now forecasting the cost of 16 Protector to be a shade under £1Bn...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
£1bn well spent IMHO; sorry G_B, but I'm with Himmler on this one.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top