• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
726
Points
1,060
If they are a sensor first then lets have flying unmanned sensors. Which we do.

I can easily visualize a situation where all four tanks in a Troop are firing their main armament. I have having a harder time visualizing them all operating Class 1 UAS at the same time. We have structures for Class 1 UAS and a C2 network.

Does each tank need a crewman dedicated to looking at UAS feeds and comms? In the OCs and BC's tank the operator is an Sgt/MCpl who is there to help the OC/BC with battlefield information management. They are the loader, but since those tanks shouldn't be firing too much its not a crisis. If the OC's panzer is firing then his C2 of the sqn takes a back seat for a moment - Maslov's hierarchy of needs places not blowing up ahead of talking to Tp Ldrs and the CO on the net. For the tanks in the Troops? Seems wasteful to have a fourth crewman when you have an auto-loader. I am not a fan of auto-loaders but perhaps that is my arch-conservatism speaking.
With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,176
Points
1,140
With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?
Reduce operator strain, and errors.
Theoretically they will be safer as one doesn’t need a human to be exposed to ammunition during the load cycle.
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?
I am not a tank designer! There is an upper limit to what can be handled by a human inside the turret. There are also real limits on things like the width of the tank due to rail cars which in turn limits the size of the turret ring.

The Brits tried separate ammo pieces, but I wouldn't call that an unqualified success.

All that to say, there may well be a point when an auto-loader is a necessity.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
This is why an autoloader for the 130mm. It's at least 40lbs 20lbs heavier than the 120mm round, and significantly larger.
Side by side comparison below. KF 51 carries 20 in the ready magazine. There is no separate bagged propellant like in an artillery piece.
1655859153732.png
 
Last edited:

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
Every time I talk to a tanker about autoloaders I hear the same excuse. What are we gonna do if we need to repair a track or something? That's at least a four-person job. But now I see that the loader is the cook for the tank. No one wants to boil their own IMP's...
I actually have the same reservation about autoloaders for artillery. They add a lot of weight and mechanical complexity to the system. I work on the presumption that any mechanical system will fail just when you need it most. Artillery also has a variety of ammunition to use and various fuze requirements (which are being sorted out through multifunction fuzes). There are only so many spaces in an autoloader magazine which can effect your useful load. (That's also a problem in a standard turret but not to the same extent). I always want a manual backup and the term manual infers that there's a man or woman to run it.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but IMHO a human still makes the most versatile loading system that there is.

With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?
Can't speak for tankers but a 130mm cartridge weighs around two thirds of that of a 155mm projectile and arty gunners handle those all the time. That said, I came across this:

The issue of increased cartridge weight is another important aspect. The cartridge, which contains the shell and its propellant, is loaded into the breech of the gun the gun before it can fire. The 130 mm cartridges are 30 kg, whereas the 120 mm cartridges are 21 kg. Because of this significant 9 kg increase in weight, Rheinmetall engineers believe that the 130 mm cartridges must be autoloaded. Autoloading is the process by which mechanical means are used to reload the gun, as opposed to manual loading, in which a human loader performs the task.

🍻
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
Weight is one thing, but length can be even more restrictive. You need to be able to manipulate the shell in the turret to load it in the breech. I believe that was part of the reasoning for the Brits to go with separate propellent and projectile (not to mention a third part for the primer I believe). Complexity with the ammo, though, can lead to mistakes.

So I can believe that a 130mm unitary APFSDS munition could be too long for a human to manipulate within a turret. Perhaps a designer could have a simple two part ammo system to keep a human loader.

My preference for human loaders is based on reliability and flexibility. Having four people for crew routine is a bonus but is not the reason in and of itself.

Anyhoo. I don't see the point in "feather-bedding" the fourth crewman in a tank if an auto-loader is required.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,304
Points
1,090
Weight and length are two factors - the real 'concern' would be having a human trying to lift, maneuver, and insert that heavier shell into the breech while the vehicle is moving.

An artillery piece is sitting static when firing - the troops are lifting a heavy shell, but do not have to deal with the additional factor of being on a moving platform and having extra G-loading impacting them as they try to maneuver the round. A tanker has to be able to pull the round out of the ready-use location, probably spin it around, then slam it into the breech, while the tank is driving, going up or down hill, slamming around.

Having a much longer, heavier round in their hands while dealing with the pitching/rolling/yawing movement of the tank is the real hazard.

I suspect that a 120mm is close to the limit of what a person can manage in that kind of environment.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
726
Points
1,060

corporal frisk takes a look at the KF51 and a bit about the KNDS-EMBT, might as well call it the alphabet tank
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.
This is the phrase that does it for me:

“the commissioning of the MGCS should take place between 2035 and 2040 if the Armée de Terre and the Bundeswehr agree on a common requirement and if industrial companies find a fair workshare”

IMHO there is not now, nor ever will be, the invulnerable tank. All tanks are a compromise of armour, weapon and manoeuverability. Can you go to war with an A4 or an earlier version M1? Yes you can albeit with greater casualties. I don't want to sound heartless but the difference between an adequate tank force and a better than adequate one is time and money. Both are a bitch. Time means you may not have your better than average tank until long after you need it. Money means you may not have anywhere near as many as you need. The whole thing is a cruel game of risk acceptance and risk avoidance.

Prudence tells me that you need a short game and a long game. The short game tells me you need to buy off the shelf tanks that are "adequate" as they are or can be made "adequate" in short order. The long game tells me that incremental upgrades are possible. So where is the low risk?

For me it's the M1. The US has built about 9,000 of these and (depending on which web page you go to) has around 1,500 - 2,500 in active service and another 2,500 - 3,500 in reserve storage. On top of that they have an active manufacturing facility in Lima OH and a rebuild and repair facility in Anniston AL. I don't like its turbine engine because of the excessive fuel consumption and heat signature but drop-in diesel replacements are possible. Long story short, the M1 is here now, available in large numbers, has an upgrade path, and repair and refurbishment facilities to tie into. It's better than "adequate". We can dream all we want about A7s and EMBTs and MGCSs and robotic combat vehicles which may or may not fall into our hands in 2035 or 40, but if we want to be able to fight the near peer battle SSE says we should currently be capable of, then we need to tap into what's easily available off the shelf. And yes - Europe is and will remain a focus.

NATO to boost its rapid reaction force to 300,000 troops​


🍻
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
726
Points
1,060
What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.
Well GDLS is advertising a "new" Abrams and Stryker coming this fall I think
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
654
Points
1,040
Well the winner of the light tank in tbe US.....drum roll please GDLS!


Maybe an interesting idea for Canada?

Atleast the winner is GDLS....ITB will not be a problem if CA goes this way. But as I pointed out in a snarky way elsewhere....let's buy the Euro one. :)
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
654
Points
1,040
Well the winner of the light tank in tbe US.....drum please GDLS!


Maybe an interesting idea for Canada?

Atleast the winner is GDLS....ITB will not be a problem if CA goes this way. But as I pointed out in a snarky way elsewhere....let's buy the Euro one. :)
Hey wait a sec....the basis of this thing is the Ajax from GD UK. They are saying that thing is not "fit for purpose"

Always Interesting in the defense contractor world.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,816
Points
1,160
I have rumours the issue with the Ajax is the build quality with hull out of alignment, British workmanship strikes again. I think it was Henry Ford that said "There will be no vices on workbenches in my factory"
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
So ... Ajax with an MGS 105mm gun.

What could go wrong?

I have rumours the issue with the Ajax is the build quality with hull out of alignment, British workmanship strikes again. I think it was Henry Ford that said "There will be no vices on workbenches in my factory"

I think the Ajax hull is actually manufactured in Spain and assembled in Wales.

😉
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
137
Points
530
Couple questions
A- Ajax vs. ASCOD, was/is the ASCOD as f'ed up but the Spanish and Austrians kept a lid on it?
B- What makes this any more appealing to Canada than CV90105 ASCOD LT105, etc?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
Sort of future armour but an interesting look into the Slovak IFV competition. CV90 was recently announced the winner.

The requirements were fairly straightforward.

In order for the Slovak Republic to fulfill its obligations towards NATO, the new infantry fighting vehicle has to meet a set of requirements recommended for a heavy mechanized infantry battalion specified in a NATO document on the Capability Codes and Capability Statements (19-003782). The suggested requirement from the document include:

  • providing the mechanized infantry with a mobile protected platform that can operate off-road in a high intensity conflict in different climate zones
  • being able to defeat armored targets with STANAG 4569 level 4 ballistic protection
  • the ability to defeat infantry targets at distances over 500 metres using its coaxial weaponry
  • being able to destroy enemy main battle tanks at distances of 2,000 metres or more
  • providing ballistic protection in accordance with STANAG 4569 level 5
  • providing mine protection in accordance with STANAG 4569 level 3b
Based on these described capability statements, the Slovak Ministry of Defence set the following requirements for its BVP replacement:

  • The new IFV must provide a high level of mobility and range that allow deployment in extreme climate conditions without road infrastructure while also being strategic transportable
  • It has to be armed with a 30 mm autocannon capable of defeating targets with STANAG 4569 level 4 and level 5 ballistic protection
  • The vehicle has to be fitted with a secondary machine gun chambered in 7.62 x 51 mm NATO
  • The armament must include a third generation anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) with a range of at least up to four kilometres. This was determined to be the Spike LR2 ATGM from Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
  • Ballistic protection has to meet the STANAG 4569 level 5 standard
  • Mine protection of the new IFV shall meet the STANAG 4569 level 4a and 4b standards; it has to reach at least level 3a
  • The vehicle shall feature radio systems capable to communicate with at least to separate radio networks simultaneously
  • A command and control system has to be fully implemented in the vehicle while national and NATO requirements to transmit classified information has to be met
  • A number of terrain obstacles representing terrain of the Central European region and the European part of the Euro-Atlantic area must be navigatable by the vehicle
  • The vehicle’s chassis must be adaptable to different roles by installing specialized equipment or a superstructure/tower without changing the (performance) properties. The crew must be able to conduct basic repairs by itself
  • The vehicle must feature a NBC protection system so that the crew will be alerted and can operate the vehicle without the use of individual protection gear when operating in areas that have been contaminated by weapons of mass destruction
  • A hardkill APS for protecting the vehicle against anti-tank guided missiles must be present

The results of the competition are in the article above but a more detailed analysis is from EDR Magazine linked below.
The Slovak MoD selects the CV90 as preferred bidder for its IFV programme - EDR Magazine

Copied below for ease of reading.

On May 26 the Slovak Ministry of Defence issued a document entitled “Feasibility Study for the Procurement of Tracked Combat Armoured Vehicles and Tracked Combat Vehicles” which draws the conclusions of the lengthy testing process that saw the competing vehicles performing in the country. The document, in Slovak language, lacks some of the information that were considered classified, but gives a general overview of the results obtained during field trials. The five main evaluation points were interoperability, mobility, firepower, mine resistance and ballistic resistance. Combat (PBOV in Slovak acronym) and support (POB) vehicles will replace in Slovak service BVP-1 and BVP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, BPsV Svatava combat reconnaissance vehicles, OT-90 armoured personnel carriers, SVO self-propelled mine-clearing vehicle and MU-90 mine-laying vehicle, all currently deployed by mechanised formations.

Four competitors took part in the bid, BAE Systems Hägglunds CV90 (both CV9030 Mk IV and CV9035 MkIV), General Dynamics European Land Systems Santa Bárbara Sistemas ASCOD, Rheinmetall Lynx KF41 and Polish Armaments Group – PGZ Borsuk. The total Phase 1 requirement is for 152 vehicles of which 110 in the combat version, 15 command posts, 9 reconnaissance, 3 antimaterial rifles team, 9 grenade launcher team, 3 recovery and 3 maintenance and repair. As for Phase 2, this should include 5 combat, 10 recovery, 9 maintenance and repair, 9 engineer mine-clearing, 9 engineer mine-laying, 9 engineer support and 20 120 mm self-propelled mortars, for a total of 71 vehicles, the grand total thus being 223.

The programme timing sees the delivery of the first combat vehicles in 2023-24 for first trials, followed in the 2025-28 period by the delivery of the other versions for testing and delivery to the units. This

According to the released document the preferred bidder is BAE Systems Hägglunds CV90, the offer being supported by the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV). This recommendation is now passed over to the Slovak Government, which decision is expected in June, which will then lead to final negotiations before the contract signature.

In the following lines a summary of the most interesting parts of the Slovak MoD document.

The evaluation took into consideration four main areas, technical, logistical, financial and the involvement of Slovak industry, the assessment being given in percent over target requirements.

For the technical evaluation mobility, manoeuvrability, firepower, protection and training assets were the main criteria. None of the vehicles fulfilled completely the requirements, the result table of the technical evaluation published in the document shows the following:

VehicleRating
CV90 MkIV292
Lynx KF41257
ASCOD279
Borsuk30
First came the CV90, although it didn’t meet two requirements, maximum cannon elevation and vertical obstacle crossing. The fact that the Mk IV is based on the wide experience acquired on previous CV90 versions, its combat experience, and the wide community that forms its Users’ Club were of course considered as a plus.

Comments on the Lynx positively underline the modularity aspect and the considerable internal space, while on the minus side we find overall dimensions and the fact that the vehicle is not in use in the country of origin, although Rheinmetall was presenting its tracked vehicle through Rheinmetall Hungary Zrt, Hungary being the launch customer for the Lynx KF41

Although ranking second in the field, the ASCOD was moved to the third place following the manufacturer information related to noise and vibrations, something that clearly emerged in the testing of the UK Ajax which is based on that chassis.

The Borsok ranking is mainly due to the fact that its development is not completed.

The security and protection of information and communication systems was also considered, the corresponding table showing the following results:

VehicleRating
CV90 MkIV83
ASCOD83
Lynx KF4180
Borsuk0
The overall results are shown in the following table:

VehicleRating
CV90 MkIV375
ASCOD362
Lynx KF41337
Borsuk30
However due to the aforementioned considerations on the ASCOD vibrations issue, the final ranking is the following:

  1. Kingdom of Sweden – CV90 (both with 30 mm and 35 mm cannon)
  2. Republic of Hungary – LYNX
  3. Kingdom of Spain – ASCOD
  4. Republic of Poland – BORSUK
The first three vehicles were then short listed and carried on a further testing at VTSÚ Záhorie. The Lynx was fitted with a Lance turret armed with the Rheinmetall Mk30-2 cannon, the ASCOD with Elbit’s MT30 fitted with a Northrop Grumman Bushmaster II Mk44S, and the CV90 with the latest d-Turret also with a Bushmaster II.

In the shooting tests the CV90 came first, ahead of the ASCOD and the Lynx. None of the turrets met the required number of ready to fire ammunition, the Lance turret being also unable to aim the cannon without using the vehicle power supply. All three competitors met driving requirements, while all of them did not fully satisfied ergonomic features.

The financial evaluation was based on a formula where the total cost of ownership was the sum of the vehicle price, a 20 years life cycle estimate, initial training costs, primary logistic costs and spares. The “financial ranking” saw the CV9030 ranking first, ahead of the CV9035, followed by ASCOD and Lynx, the ranking remaining the same after additional information were required by the Slovak MoD.

When logistic issues were considered the ranking changed considerably, the Lynx coming first, ahead of the CV90, the two versions being ranked equally, and of the ASCOD, the Borsuk coming last.

As for the ability to involve the Slovak industry into the programme, the CV9030 came first ahead of the Lynx, the CV9035 and the ASCOD.

In the end the final evaluation of the five original competitors, with the achieved percentages after the evaluation of tenders is the following:

VehicleAchieved percentage
CV903099.67%
CV903598.46%
ASCOD88.10%
Lynx KF4176.66%
Borsuk3.53%
Following the request of additional information that modified the financial and logistical sections, a final table is provided showing the following results:

VehicleAchieved percentage
CV903099.67%
CV903597.76%
ASCOD92.80%
Lynx KF4190.20%
Borsuk3.72%
A financial evaluation then follows. Drafting a table based on what is written in the Slovak MoD document brings to the following:

VehicleCost in € incl. VAT
CV901,973,570,581
ASCOD1.962.700.133
Lynx KF412 346 483 109
Borsukn.a.
In one of the final statements the document says: “Summarising all available documents, the Swedish offer with CV9030 and CV9035 from BAE Systems Hägglunds appears to be an offer that to the greatest extent meets the requirements of the Slovak Republic Armed Forces for a tracked armoured combat vehicle. The vehicle meets the technical parameters, including those which were determined as key/priority in terms of use for the needs of the Slovak Republic Armed Forces.”

Estimated costs for Phase 1, including 35 million € for infrastructures are the following:

VehicleCost in € incl. VAT
CV90301,669,093,939
CV90351 688 845 030
ASCOD1,724,882,231
Lynx KF411,854,089,739
@KevinB tagged because I know you're a CV90 fan like me!
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
Couple questions
A- Ajax vs. ASCOD, was/is the ASCOD as f'ed up but the Spanish and Austrians kept a lid on it?
B- What makes this any more appealing to Canada than CV90105 ASCOD LT105, etc?
For starters, an Ajax is min 10 tons heavier than an ASCOD. New turret design, different suspension, different engine, etc... Ajax is a derivative from the ASCOD but certainly not an ASCOD.
 
Top