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

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

Maxman1 said:
Only if we can't get CV90 (the CV9035 was selected in 2008, before the government went with the LAV UP program instead).
Click to expand...

This trials were in … 2012? I want to say. I had some friends go to Maryland for the competition. I don’t think any actual selection was ever made.
 
markppcli said:
This trials were in … 2012? I want to say. I had some friends go to Maryland for the competition. I don’t think any actual selection was ever made.
Click to expand...
You are technically correct.

Futurama GIF


But the announcement was literally days away when it was cancelled. There obviously had to have been a decision made which to my understanding, without official verification, was for the CV90.

🍻
 
Maxman1 said:
Only if we can't get CV90 (the CV9035 was selected in 2008, before the government went with the LAV UP program instead).
Click to expand...
My point to those was if there was a made in Canada option.

I’m not sure BAE would be interested in a North American CV-90 manufacturing facility, without significant demand.
 
KevinB said:
My point to those was if there was a made in Canada option.

I’m not sure BAE would be interested in a North American CV-90 manufacturing facility, without significant demand.
Click to expand...
Question about the CV90 going forwards.

From what I understand from reading a number of articles about its role in Ukraine it has performed very well and not a single Ukrainian crew member has been killed. I know that I significant number of NATO countries have banded together to order large quantities of CV90's for their infantry. Again, from what I've read, its 40mm gun has an adequate deterrent against older Soviet/Russian tanks - T55/T62, even older model T72's.

Here is my question - With the vast, vast majority of these older model Soviet/Russian tanks blown up, burnt out, abandoned, written off and on a go-forward basis Russia eventually replacing them with T90's and whatever else they come up with in the future, won't these CV90's be outclassed in the next 8+yrs? Won't their 40mm gun being totally outmatched?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
Czech_pivo said:
Question about the CV90 going forwards.

From what I understand from reading a number of articles about its role in Ukraine it has performed very well and not a single Ukrainian crew member has been killed. I know that I significant number of NATO countries have banded together to order large quantities of CV90's for their infantry. Again, from what I've read, its 40mm gun has an adequate deterrent against older Soviet/Russian tanks - T55/T62, even older model T72's.

Here is my question - With the vast, vast majority of these older model Soviet/Russian tanks blown up, burnt out, abandoned, written off and on a go-forward basis Russia eventually replacing them with T90's and whatever else they come up with in the future, won't these CV90's be outclassed in the next 8+yrs? Won't their 40mm gun being totally outmatched?
Click to expand...
It's an IFV, not a tank. The 40mm's success against older tanks allowed the Swedes to go a different direction than the Bradley/Marder etc.- relying on the gun for self defense rather than mounting ATGM's. With that luxury going away current/future model CV90's are getting missiles. The gun will still be effective "class on class" against other IFV's.
 
IKnowNothing said:
It's an IFV, not a tank. The 40mm's success against older tanks allowed the Swedes to go a different direction- relying on the gun for self defense rather than mounting ATGM's. With that luxury going away current/future model CV90's are getting missiles. The gun will still be effective "class on class" against other IFV's.
Click to expand...
So the pivot on the CV90 going forward will be to add/include AT/AD missiles to counter the fact that the 40mm gun, that was a 'deterrent' against older T55/T62/T72's, will be useless against T90's and other more modern tanks on a go-forward basis. I am aware that the CV90 is NOT a tank but in essence a 'Bradley' or a 'LAV6'.
 
Czech_pivo said:
So the pivot on the CV90 going forward will be to add/include AT/AD missiles to counter the fact that the 40mm gun, that was a 'deterrent' against older T55/T62/T72's, will be useless against T90's and other more modern tanks on a go-forward basis. I am aware that the CV90 is NOT a tank but in essence a 'Bradley' or a 'LAV6'.
Click to expand...
40mm APFSDS will still put a hurting on a T-90. Not rip them open like the 25mm APFSDS-DU from the Bradley, but still do a decent job on them.
Most of the recent CV90's have options for Javelin or similar fire and forget missile -- the Javelin can also be launched NLOS from a remote UAS as well.

Missiles kill tanks at long range, tanks kill tanks at medium and closer ranges. IFV's killing tanks with guns isn't the objective at all.

If you are super concerned with 40mm and newer Russian/Chinese/ Iranian tanks, then you can always opt for a Depleted Uranium sabot round. The UK was looking at that for the Warrior upgrade (before they took a knee on the "peace dividend" post Afghan).
 
KevinB said:
40mm APFSDS will still put a hurting on a T-90. Not rip them open like the 25mm APFSDS-DU from the Bradley, but still do a decent job on them.
Most of the recent CV90's have options for Javelin or similar fire and forget missile -- the Javelin can also be launched NLOS from a remote UAS as well.

Missiles kill tanks at long range, tanks kill tanks at medium and closer ranges. IFV's killing tanks with guns isn't the objective at all.

If you are super concerned with 40mm and newer Russian/Chinese/ Iranian tanks, then you can always opt for a Depleted Uranium sabot round. The UK was looking at that for the Warrior upgrade (before they took a knee on the "peace dividend" post Afghan).
Click to expand...
I think back to news groups in the 90' s early 21st century when the subject of DU penetrators either in tank rounds or 20 mm ciws.
People freaked , and not long after the Canadian Government decided not to purchase either APDS/ DU or 20 mm DU rounds.
We're not just talking people passionate about cause I got the distinct impression at times I was dealing with people quite literally frothing at the mouth.
 
FJAG said:
You are technically correct.

Futurama GIF


But the announcement was literally days away when it was cancelled. There obviously had to have been a decision made which to my understanding, without official verification, was for the CV90.

🍻
Click to expand...
Well the point was two fold - one it wasn’t in 2008, two it wasn’t actually picked. All which is to say it never happened.
 
Czech_pivo said:
So the pivot on the CV90 going forward will be to add/include AT/AD missiles to counter the fact that the 40mm gun, that was a 'deterrent' against older T55/T62/T72's, will be useless against T90's and other more modern tanks on a go-forward basis. I am aware that the CV90 is NOT a tank but in essence a 'Bradley' or a 'LAV6'.
Click to expand...
T90s aren’t the big issue. I’d be more worried if they were building large numbers of T80Us / BVs.
 
FJAG said:
You are technically correct.

Futurama GIF


But the announcement was literally days away when it was cancelled. There obviously had to have been a decision made which to my understanding, without official verification, was for the CV90.

🍻
Click to expand...
Didn't all the companies sue to get the winner released ? What happened to that?
 
MilEME09 said:
Didn't all the companies sue to get the winner released ? What happened to that?
Click to expand...
I don’t recall that. I know two of the companies were seeking compensation for their costs related to the bid, but don’t know how that turned out either.

🍻
 
KevinB said:
40mm APFSDS will still put a hurting on a T-90. Not rip them open like the 25mm APFSDS-DU from the Bradley, but still do a decent job on them.
Most of the recent CV90's have options for Javelin or similar fire and forget missile -- the Javelin can also be launched NLOS from a remote UAS as well.

Missiles kill tanks at long range, tanks kill tanks at medium and closer ranges. IFV's killing tanks with guns isn't the objective at all.

If you are super concerned with 40mm and newer Russian/Chinese/ Iranian tanks, then you can always opt for a Depleted Uranium sabot round. The UK was looking at that for the Warrior upgrade (before they took a knee on the "peace dividend" post Afghan).
Click to expand...

Can we also consider that tanks seem to be reaching their upper limits with respect to weight? Challenger and Abrams at 70 tonnes are well defended but are reaching, or have reached, the limits of their mobility, judging from Ukrainian reports. This observation would seem to be backed up by the "down-sizing" of the latest Abrams variant.

The tanks will be "bullet-resistant", not "bullet-proof". The crews, like your average infanteer, will still be inclined to read the ground in order to move. The difference is that the tank will have more options and can take greater risks.
 
Kirkhill said:
Can we also consider that tanks seem to be reaching their upper limits with respect to weight? Challenger and Abrams at 70 tonnes are well defended but are reaching, or have reached, the limits of their mobility, judging from Ukrainian reports. This observation would seem to be backed up by the "down-sizing" of the latest Abrams variant.
Click to expand...
65 seems to be the upper limit before you start hitting mobility issues.
Kirkhill said:
The tanks will be "bullet-resistant", not "bullet-proof". The crews, like your average infanteer, will still be inclined to read the ground in order to move. The difference is that the tank will have more options and can take greater risks.
Click to expand...
Tanks will remain bullet proof. New armour tech is impressive, with some material sciences starting to mature. Im curious what armour will be like in 30 years, but at that point maybe we have laser guns that cuts right through haha. Tanks have always had to read the ground, perhaps moreso than the infantry. Easy to recover a dude from a fen, not so much a tank haha.
 
Last edited:
Colin Parkinson said:
Well there is hope that the Reserve Artillery will get new to them guns to supplement the remaining C3's

Click to expand...

I joined the British Army in time to hear about how effective the Vickers Gun was during various 'brush fire' conflicts around the globe in the post-WW2 period from NCOs old enough to have used them in anger.

It was heavy, especially when the water jacket was full, but apparently completely reliable in sustained fire mode under the most adverse conditions, especially when used in the indirect fire role.
 
Kirkhill said:
Can we also consider that tanks seem to be reaching their upper limits with respect to weight? Challenger and Abrams at 70 tonnes are well defended but are reaching, or have reached, the limits of their mobility, judging from Ukrainian reports. This observation would seem to be backed up by the "down-sizing" of the latest Abrams variant.

The tanks will be "bullet-resistant", not "bullet-proof". The crews, like your average infanteer, will still be inclined to read the ground in order to move. The difference is that the tank will have more options and can take greater risks.
Click to expand...
PrairieFella said:
65 seems to be the upper limit before you start hitting mobility issues.

Tanks will remain bullet proof. New armour tech is impressive, with some material sciences starting to mature. Im curious what armour will be like in 30 years, but at that point maybe we have laser guns that cuts right through haha. Tanks have always had to read the ground, perhaps mores than the infantry. Easy to recover a dude from a fen, not so much a tank haha.
Click to expand...

Mobility is also a function of terrain -- a 75t tank that can rip around hard pack desert at 55mph isn't going to be able to do the same in soft ground.

Keep in mind the current inventory Western MBT's were built to take hits from the front - so you have insane upper glacis plates and turret faces. As well as ammunition blow out panels designed to save the crew. Roof or Engine deck armor was limited as the threat was low as Russian top attack technology was non-existent/faulty.

Now any idiot with a FPV drone can try to hit the ammo bustle or engine - and while not necessarily K Kills - they will disable the vehicle nonetheless.
So one then adds cages, APS etc on the vehicles - and all of a sudden your 70-80t tank is now a 90+ ton tank, that isn't recoverable anymore with your ARV, and it cannot get moved by air easily, it requires a lot more maintenance etc.

Starting with a 50t base that is designed to take 10+t more weight is a lot easier than a 70-80t base that is pretty much maxed out already for weight, and trying to add 10t of defensive measures..
 
KevinB said:
Mobility is also a function of terrain -- a 75t tank that can rip around hard pack desert at 55mph isn't going to be able to do the same in soft ground.

Keep in mind the current inventory Western MBT's were built to take hits from the front - so you have insane upper glacis plates and turret faces. As well as ammunition blow out panels designed to save the crew. Roof or Engine deck armor was limited as the threat was low as Russian top attack technology was non-existent/faulty.

Now any idiot with a FPV drone can try to hit the ammo bustle or engine - and while not necessarily K Kills - they will disable the vehicle nonetheless.
So one then adds cages, APS etc on the vehicles - and all of a sudden your 70-80t tank is now a 90+ ton tank, that isn't recoverable anymore with your ARV, and it cannot get moved by air easily, it requires a lot more maintenance etc.

Starting with a 50t base that is designed to take 10+t more weight is a lot easier than a 70-80t base that is pretty much maxed out already for weight, and trying to add 10t of defensive measures..
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top