Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
You Jest, but...Ok, I kid, no one I can recall has ever suggested a bayonet for a tank. And you lot were getting your hopes up as well. Best I can do for you is this, and I know it came from the deranged mind of an ARRSEr.
My God, it's beautiful...
 
On the other hand every one of those cut outs and recesses is a potential radar spike

The warrior turrets signature managment may be a bit more involved than superficial comparison of shapes indicates.

How dare you sir! Complex RCS analysis at different elevations and frequencies is no substitute for a quick ‘we’re Google-doomed’ analysis...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On the other hand every one of those cut outs and recesses is a potential radar spike

The warrior turrets signature managment may be a bit more involved than superficial comparison of shapes indicates.
Do you mean to say that I can't start a new career as a stealth vehicle designer by reading Wikipedia and wargame forums? I'm crushed.

More seriously, I imagine that attempting to design in signature reduction by angling the armour plates is a losing game, and it would be more effective to let the armour do its job of being armour and add on sheathing, fabric, and netting for camouflage (including against radar) purposes. This is especially the case as there has to be all sorts of crap on the outside of the armour which would need to be covered up anyway.
 
My God, it's beautiful...

Well I asked a colleague about tank bayonets. My friend is an expert of stupid tank designs, created by assorted inventors, who were convinced that their design was the next best thing for armour warfare. He then writes articles on them which get posted over at tanks encyclopedia (I've got a couple of articles over there as well). When I asked in chat everyone was thinking "Someone lunatic must have patented the idea. It's just too obvious a stupid idea to miss."

Well, no one, to our knowledge has actually tried to seriously patent the idea of a tank bayonet. The closest that could be found were several designs with blades and spikes on the hull.

In addition there was also this idea from the First World War, which is somewhat worrying as it was actually constructed:


There is also this photo, which answers the question I think:


So Cr2 with the RHM turret will come fitted for Bayonet.
 
How dare you sir! Complex RCS analysis at different elevations and frequencies is no substitute for a quick ‘we’re Google-doomed’ analysis...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RCS analysts isn’t complex at the primary level - it’s actually really easy. See RN warships were 90 degree plate join angle and corners are now verboten.
radar waves obey absolutely fixed rules, 90 angles reflect perfectly back to the source, put two 90 corners together avd you get a corner reflector that multiplies the effect.

The new turret breaks every basic reflectance rule, even the Russians have enough gumption to RCS shape all their new vehicle turrets.
even the Russian do, unsurprisingly as modern RCS reduction relies on their maths - see Pyotr Ufimtsev
 
Well I asked a colleague about tank bayonets. My friend is an expert of stupid tank designs, created by assorted inventors, who were convinced that their design was the next best thing for armour warfare. He then writes articles on them which get posted over at tanks encyclopedia (I've got a couple of articles over there as well). When I asked in chat everyone was thinking "Someone lunatic must have patented the idea. It's just too obvious a stupid idea to miss."

Well, no one, to our knowledge has actually tried to seriously patent the idea of a tank bayonet. The closest that could be found were several designs with blades and spikes on the hull.

In addition there was also this idea from the First World War, which is somewhat worrying as it was actually constructed:


There is also this photo, which answers the question I think:


So Cr2 with the RHM turret will come fitted for Bayonet.
Fitted for but not actually with ... cost overruns etc etc
 
434A8DE400000578-4794340-The_HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_is_escorted_into_Portsmouth_Harbour_with-a-4_...jpg


No shortage of big flat surfaces here - yet signature management was a factor* So i stand by my point - there may be more involved than a simple analysis based on - that looks square would indicate.

Comparing the F117 and the F35 - the F35 shape has more in common with Rafael - Yet the F35 has a lower signature (and better flight charecterstics) than the former


*Note the ramp with big slab front vs the rounded ramp of the predecessors
 
RCS analysts isn’t complex at the primary level - it’s actually really easy. See RN warships were 90 degree plate join angle and corners are now verboten.
radar waves obey absolutely fixed rules, 90 angles reflect perfectly back to the source, put two 90 corners together avd you get a corner reflector that multiplies the effect.

The new turret breaks every basic reflectance rule, even the Russians have enough gumption to RCS shape all their new vehicle turrets.
even the Russian do, unsurprisingly as modern RCS reduction relies on their maths - see Pyotr Ufimtsev

Leaving aside the naively simplistic of radar signature analysis (I’m sure those Dstl scientists will be pleased to hear they’re wasting their time with this), perhaps you might like to take a look at this example of Russia STRONK...radar return...




Maybe we should play a game of ‘spot the hotspot’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Puma MELLS (55).jpg


To mine untutored eyes - this fares no better - losts of protrusions re-entrys - sharp edges and possibly even a shot trap
 
Leaving aside the naively simplistic of radar signature analysis (I’m sure those Dstl scientists will be pleased to hear they’re wasting their time with this), perhaps you might like to take a look at this example of Russia STRONK...radar return...




Maybe we should play a game of ‘spot the hotspot’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never noticed before how far back the turret was on that thing. Do you reckon there's some protrusion into the fighting compartment?
I'm guessing not much, if any, but you never can tell with Russians.

Also, impressed with the hard kill APS pointing backwards towards the dismount area!
 

I never noticed before how far back the turret was on that thing. Do you reckon there's some protrusion into the fighting compartment?
I'm guessing not much, if any, but you never can tell with Russians.

Also, impressed with the hard kill APS pointing backwards towards the dismount area!

Im thinking it would struggle with a reverse slope -
 
Interesting place for the exhaust though. Guessing wading was not high on their list, or rather lower than signature management!

As long as the engines running exhaust height isnt an issue from a mechanical stand point** of course should you stall it - then it may get complicated.

How that would impinge on AFVs where getting stuck could mean a significant wait - or if theres an increased likelyhood of stalling I couldnt speculate


**Before the resident expert corrects me - Ive reguarly had vehicles submerged to bonnet height ( raised intake )and the exhaust under a few feet of water - sometimes idling for several minutes whilst we arrange recovery
 
Last edited:
I never noticed before how far back the turret was on that thing. Do you reckon there's some protrusion into the fighting compartment?
I'm guessing not much, if any, but you never can tell with Russians.

Also, impressed with the hard kill APS pointing backwards towards the dismount area!

I’m assuming it’s probably some kind of Samson/MCT-30 RWS job, in which case it will have minimal hull intrusion.

As far as I can tell, the only hard-kill launchers are the large Drozd-2 style tubes pointing forwards - the small boxes are likely to be soft-kill smoke grenade dischargers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Leaving aside the naively simplistic of radar signature analysis (I’m sure those Dstl scientists will be pleased to hear they’re wasting their time with this), perhaps you might like to take a look at this example of Russia STRONK...radar return...




Maybe we should play a game of ‘spot the hotspot’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That makes Ajax look like a good idea.
 
Leaving aside the naively simplistic of radar signature analysis (I’m sure those Dstl scientists will be pleased to hear they’re wasting their time with this)

DSTL will have had no input to that turret, it’s what happens when an obsolescent platform gets a very badly implemented update.

perhaps you should ring up the Huns and tell them to stop wasting time on RCS shaping their panzers as the British Army has repealed the laws of physics?
Whats that? Boxer has an RCS signature managed hull shape!

even the French do it, but that’s the advantage of buying new equipment in a timely manner, not spending a decade or two warming over an already obsolete vehicle.

21935503-32CB-4A15-9D72-B3CB3DE3B5DB.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Same stuff.
It's actually a lot more important than many think, indeed I am going to be doing an article shortly that argues it is Britain's most important invention of the Second World War.
Radar and Bletchley park are important, but without the thousands of tons of coal needed to power the south of the UK they were nothing but curious paper weights. It was plastic that prevented a total collapse of coastal shipping, and literally kept the lights on.
Equally, the US production saved a eight figure value in steel, which allowed the US to produce more Aircraft carriers, tanks and stuff.

I also have suspicions about how it effected post war tank development. End of the war rolls round, and suddenly every trace of Plastic vanishes. Its never mentioned again. From 1942-43 it had been noted that Plastic performed better against high velocity shots than regular Good quality plate, especially in regards to hollow charge attacks (indeed it had stunning success in 1945 agaisnt that). Both the US and the UK were working on fitting tanks with it.

Then suddenly nothing. Nada Zip. not one person mentions "why don't we mount a tank with plastic?". It's like it never existed.
In 1945 the standard for plastic was Plastic Protective Plating, Mk.III. These are trays filled with plastic, a few inches thick which could then be bolted onto surfaces that needed protecting. They would have to be replaced every few shots, as they didn't respond well to multiple hits. Equally Plastic has a low protection per inch so that it needs to be quite thick to equal a more dense material, but is lighter.

Now skip forward a few years and the first proposals for Burlington were:
They came in trays to be applied to tanks, as they weren't very good for receiving multiple hits.
They tended to be quite chunky, 6in across, but would provide better protection than equivalent thickness of steel agaisnt high velocity and hollow charges, they were lighter as well.

To me that sounds suspiciously similar. Equally, you add in the document blackhole, and I can't help but be a bit suspicious.
Granted, its almost certain I'll never know if I was right, but as conspiracy theories go its got more than usual evidence to support it.

Oh, there's a book on Plastic coming out next year. I was going to write it, then I realised a colleague had started before me, so I gave him all my research.

For those of you interested in the Plastic Armour thing I mentioned. Part one of my pitch is here:

Part two will, unsurprisingly be next week.
 
DSTL will have had no input to that turret, it’s what happens when an obsolescent platform gets a very badly implemented update.

perhaps you should ring up the Huns and tell them to stop wasting time on RCS shaping their panzers as the British Army has repealed the laws of physics?
Whats that? Boxer has an RCS signature managed hull shape!

even the French do it, but that’s the advantage of buying new equipment in a timely manner, not spending a decade or two warming over an already obsolete vehicle.

View attachment 513039

Oh, for God’s sake...


The point is that there is much more to RF signature management than just trotting out the line about right angled corners. Lots of people like to show off their window-dressed designs in glossy brochures - which superficially appear to have followed the ‘rules’ - but the reality is that when you conduct an in-depth analysis - based on likely waveforms and elevation/azimuth - most of them still present a significant enough signature to distinguish them as an armoured vehicle.

Boxer is a good design - but it’s nothing like the equivalent of an F-35 on wheels. Add any kind of turret to it, and you’ll be increasing its signature significantly, regardless of design practice.

And of course when all’s said and done, you still have to do the analysis to figure out what the difference of a few dB of return actually buys you in terms of probability of detection against most likely RF threats - which are likely to be very different to the long-range search radars that warships seek to avoid. For a moving vehicle that has been designed to fight as well as hide, the answer is likely to be “not a lot”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top