I have posted a new article on my website HERE concerning the choice of armament for future light AFVs in general, and Warrior Lethality Improvement Project in particular.

The picture shows some of the experimental ammo:

Very good text, pointing out the most relevant trends.
I wonder why German Puma has 30x173, this may occur too small in future.

For the purpose of being complete, what ever happened to that Polish BMP-2000(?) concept with the IMI 60mm? S/F....Ken M

BWP-2000, it was only a study - technology demonstrator.
Polish soldier is happy when he gets passive sights to his BMP-1 unfortunately.

I've extended and updated the article:

Please note: it's now WFLIP

Tony,
Very interesting article, thank you for sharing. Please keep us posted as developments unfold.

Have you heard anything about the re-arming of the Chally2's?.
As I understand it (and rightly so) the UK army are currently focused on up-armouring, rather than re-arming.

Charles

Nice webpage Tony.

There was an interesting photo of the Lockheed Martin installation in what I think was Military machines International the other day. Looked pretty tidy, and looked to be an entirely new turret as you say.

I have not heard anything about that program that was supposed to fit the Challenger 2 with the L55 in a long while.

The turret is nearly indestructable but the hull could use some improvement and the British seem to be on the right track to doing that.

The last reference I have on file to the Chally rearming is two years old. They got as far as test-firing the modified gun in a tank.

Their original effort, which was test-fired late last year, has a bizarre ammunition arrangement in which the ammo belt runs from the back of the turret around the outside of the turret before entering near the breech. It is concealed behind a cover but is outside the armour. I don't know if they're retaining that for the new turret, but I hope not!

The Warrior poses quite a problem for armament designers, because the turret ring is quite small and the depth available is shallow as it is located over the fuel tank.

Thanks for the article, Tony.

I actually first saw your website years ago, looking up information about the 37mm Vigilante.
(I grew up near Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and always wondered what the huge rotary cannon was doing there.)

That's a great article! I really enjoyed it.

I wonder why the contenders for the new Warrior turret picked 30mm when the specification specifically stated 35mm. Would that actually disqualify them?

So, out of curiosity, how well does the DU 25mm ammo used in the M242 Bushmaster in the Bradley compare with the larger offerings that are now being adopted?

How outgunned is the US Army likely to be now and in the near/meduim future? Do any of the larger calibre rounds also use DU? How well do they perform without it and how well would they with it?


So many questions, so much to learn..........



-K

AFAIK the latest 40mm Bofors rounds and 40mm CTA manages ~150mm RHA@1,5km with tungsten munition.
I seem to recall 30mm-rounds doing ~100m RHA.

How long should our existing stocks of ammunition for the rifled gun last at current rates of consumption?

Good read


Btw. Any info about Russian guns could replace 30 mm? 40 mm? 57 mm? I saw PT-76 modernized with 57 mm gun, but it had veeery long barrel and it was probably to heavy to fit in place of f.e. 2A42. And what is the best Russian 30 mm AP ammo available, APDS or APFSDS?

I have no info on that, but I think that they're planning to make some more anyway, as they can't wait until the regunning is done.

The Russians did show an experimental 45mm gun about ten years ago, but nothing since then. I don't suppose they see replacing the 30mm in the BMP-3 as much of a priority, given that thumping great 100mm sitting alongside it...

The Russians themselves only make APDS for the 30mm, although other makers are working on APFSDS.

Does that mean they developed new ammunition (HESH, APFSDS) for the 120mm L30?

Maybe it would be possible to fit the 57mm into BMP-3 and Baksha turrets? After all in normal config there's enough place for 30mm and 100mm.

I thought the whole reason for te re-gunning was because they didn't want to have to restart production of ammo. If they are going to have to anyway, wouldn't they just be better off making the new production run a very large one and skip the re-gunning alltogether? IIRC that was what their tankers wanted anyway.





-K

Given current financial constraints, that might very well happen...

Ive always been uneasy with the regunning. As Chris will tell you, the MOD have a habbit of upgrading some aircraft of a fleet but not others, which get put in reserve. The result is that greater use is made of the limited number of upgraded aircraft, and the rest that are sitting in mothballs are obsolecent. Considering that we need to keep Challenger2 in service till 2040, I can see regunning as inevitable at some time. However unless they upgrade ALL the fleet, which is going to be costly, you could potentially will see a dwindling supply of tanks which are going to have to take up all the deployments. Last time I heard there was only about 2 3ds of the fleet were deployable, since the rest had to go through servicing after deployment in Iraq. Bearing in mind you have a fleet of only 384 tanks, you can see problems could easily mount up. I did hear that the Challenger regiments are now only retaining a squadron of tanks for training, I wonder if this has anything to do with the amount of tanks that need servicing after Iraq?

I wonder if a more viable alternative is to buy back stocks of Hesh from Oman and Jordan (who cant have much use for their Hesh in the near future anyway) if there is a problem with Hesh stocks. Is it my fevered imagination or was at least part of the problem due to propellent rather than the age of the rounds?

What kind of refurbishing are we talking about? Is it just replacing worn suspension and track parts or whole bottom up rebuilds? Is it related to battle damage or just simply routine wear and tear?




-K

Ive no idea, all I read is that only about 200 of them were still deployable. We know 2 took extensive battle damage that would require rework, and the rest of them must have took a hell of a thrashing in Iraq.

A lot of vehicles and aircraft in Iraq are being used at many times the peacetime rate, in a difficult environment, and are getting clapped out (sand and dust is extremely hostile to machinery).

Large contracts are now being handed out by the US for "reset", which means restoring or replacing the equipment worn out in this way.

The extra weight of the uparmouring and modification (taking the tank to around 8 tons greater than design combat weight) is supposed to be hell on the roadwheels and tracks (don't know about the suspension), so it could be that mostly.
As well as regunning, there is a very strong argument for re-engining with the 1500hp MTU883, ala the Challenger 2E as the extra weight of armour is really hurting performance. Then there's the battlefield management computers, new thermal sights, overhead weapons stations....

It has been done on some prototype turrets IIRC, but why would one want to do that? 30+100 is so much better. 100 mm HE thump and the fire output of the 30 mm. 57 mm doesn't yield anywhere near as much HE as the 100 mm, and is nowhere near as fast as the 30 mm. Also, if you want to penetrate targets armored against 30 mm, you might as well use the ATGM, since anything armored from 30 mm is probably also immune to 57 mm as well.
The only beef one could have with BMP-3 armament is the lack of effect of the 100 mm ATGM against modern MBTs, but that's a different story...

I liked that proposal, probably TOO much.

Considering the up gunning of AFVs, I wonder if the bigger is better solution for the gun is really the right way forward. I mean how many 60mm rounds could you carry and how many dismounts ? How long could you keep supporting the dismounts with covering fire ?
And finally even if you are now able to easily destroy another AFV that is 30mm proof in the frontal arc, he still can do the same to you if he has a ATGM launcher. Considering the fact that those AFV most likely will be fighting more against light infantry and unconventional forces, then facing hordes of heavy AFVs I think that you need ABM and as much of it as you can carry. If you are trying to cover the advance of the infantry, it does not matter much if you use a 30mm, a 40mm or a 60mm all will be good enough to keep the enemy heads down. I think somewhere between 30-40mm with a good ABM (not only throwing fragments forward, but also down and backwards) is the best compromise for an AFV.

The problem is that even the lighter AFVs - like the BMP-3 - are getting significant armour upgrades these days. The Dutch decided that 30mm APFSDS wasn't good enough to deal with future MICVs.

To match the effectiveness (lethal area) of the 40mm CT ABM, you need to fire c. 3x 30mm rounds, so the size and weight advantage of 30mm ammo disappears rather rapidly.


30mm seems to be regarded as the minimum calibre for that, as well as the baseline for future use in terms of its AP performance.

Wasn't one of the main reasons why the Dutch adopted the 35/50mm Bushmaster III the fact that they can continue to use the stocks of ammunition taken from the Gepard AA tank?

I don't know whether fitting the MTU EuroPowerPack into a standard British army Challenger 2 would be that simply. If you take a look at the rear end of the Challenger 2E, there seem to be some structural changes (exhaust grills etc.). I would think that re-engining the vehicle also involves fitting a new transmission.

Maybe the British army should order some brand-new Challenger 2E (perhaps with an updated L28 tungsten-based APFSDS for export to Jordan and Oman)?

BTW:
Does anybody know what kind of battle management system the Challenger 2E was offered with?

And how many countries field so upgraded BMP-3s and how many of those ? I do agree on the 30mm being a little weak now, but I also think anything above 40mm is too big and you can carry enough rounds anymore.

Well if you want plenty of rounds to fire HEAB at fairly short range,
going for a combined BMP-3'esc armament with a AGL (possibly in a OWS) for volume fire with HEAB
and a 35-60mm high pressure or a 90mm low pressure gun might be better.

As far as I understand it, HE in 30mm autocannons have problems penetrating exterior walls,
so in the current FIBUA and COIN day and age
having a high presure gun >30mm or a HESH-shooter seems like a good idea.

For the unlikely event of a war against a conventional adversary with modern equipment
having the same >30mm high pressure or a 90mm low pressure gun seems like a good idea as well.

That was one of the three reasons given, along with APFSDS performance and the fact that to achieve the same effect in the anti-personnel role, they would only have to fire half the number of ABM rounds as a 30mm.

How long do you think that an MICV gun, once selected, is going to stay in service for? Note that the German Marders still have their original 20mm from over three decades ago; no-one would pretend that that is adequate now.

In the light of the steady increase in size and protection levels of all categories of armoured vehicle, it makes little sense to decide today to adopt a gun which is only just about adequate against current vehicles. A degree of future-proofing makes sense!

Guys,

Thanks for answering all my questions!




-K

I dont know enough of the present problems to comment on them, but ive not read of any that didnt exist before uparmouring. The roadwheels were causing problems as long ago as the exercises in Poland (no, Im not even going to try to spell the name!) and the roadwheels dont seem to be replaced with the new starfish style pattern till they wear out. A mixture of both was visible on the Challys I saw at the 2006 Bovington show.

Possibly performance is hit by the turret uparmouring. However I noted back in 2003 a few comments on how the performance was hit by the hull uparmouring. That turned out to be more due to the running of the machines on avgas than due to the extra weight.

The engine is a good idea, however I cant help but think that the money would be better spent on other things. The real problem I have with it is that many subcomponents would then have to be acquired abroad. Its not like the drivetrain has proven to be a problem Ala L60 anyway.

Performance in Iraq would be affected by the high temperatures, and in Afghanistan by the altitude as well.

Titan and Trojan engine bay is different from baseline CR2 to allow for use in hot climates without derating, so that's an option for rebuilds.

"The Omani Challenger 2s have a number of modifications to suit operations in the Middle East such as a modified water cooling system and airflow, larger radiators..." (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_challenger2.html)

Tomas Hoting: The Europack would be both engine and transmission. If CR2 was a racing car, then the relative movement of the mass of the engine towards the rear of the bay (to keep the shorter pack aligned with the drive wheels) would likely create handling difficulties. Not sure about the effect on a 62+ tonne tank though

Would this be the Porche affect?

Sure, but there is a limit before that effects the main role of supporting the infantry. And with a turret like the one on Puma changing the gun might becaome easier. But even then there are still 3 options, smaller gun with more rounds and ATGMs or larger gun. For example imagine a 30mm with a launcher for themobaric warhead mssilies and HEAT missiles compared to a 40mm only vehicle.

Although I think that the 35 used by the Durch seems a good solution, does it not even have the option to go 50mm if you want or need to ?

Rather the opposite.

A shorter and lighter drivetrain mounted further back,
would obviously have it's CG further back in the vehicle,
but if you look at the entire tank you effectively remove weight
behind the vehicles CG (the forward part of the engine bay)
so the vehicles CG will move forward (the vehicle will have less weight in the rear).

At the same time the Challenger have gained weight in armour,
which tend to be added on the front half of the vehicle,
so all in all the CG should move forward,
due to weight being lost in the rear (new drivetrain)
and weight being added mainly on the front half (more armour).

So the vehicle should become understeered,
require more power to steer and tend to dig in the front while steering.

The Bushmaster III used in the CV9035 has the theoretical future possibility of being converted to 50mm Supershot, but ammo development stopped a long time ago and it would I suspect take a lot of time and money to make it service-ready.

Seems reasonable, but the moment of inertia increase due to concentrating the engine weight further back in the vehicle might make it tail happy. Who is going to take the CR2E out for a drift session? I think we saw the LEO2 version a year or so ago.

David

It was reported at Jane's late yesterday that the 40mm CTA has won the WLIP (now WFLIP) contest!

I am delighted, rather amazed, and also a bit cautious, given the parlous state of the defence budget. I hope this isn't going to be a case of "you've won the contest, but wer're cancelling the requirement".

Hmm, for MBT it is Mobility/Firepower/Protection, for IFV it's about Mobility/Firepower/Protection/Dismounts.

The protection requirement for IFVs is quite high, at least for maximum modules.
30mm APFSDS and protection against shaped charges of up to something like 90mm calibre (I don't think IFVs shall really protect against RPG-29-like weapons).
A lot of weight goes to protection therefore.

Another factor is mobility, and the requirement is simple; match the current MBT in mobility.

The core capability of an IFV is the "I", the dismounts. Even if they can fight mounted.
6 are too few, requirements like 8 are better.

Finally, there's firepower, and this should be minor to the other three attributes in an IFV.
The firepower of a 30mm autocannon is easily enough for general support.

Few vehicles can be destroyed with a 35, 40 or 50mm munition that cannot be destroyed by 30mm. Only new IFVs (not many in service outside NATO) require more than 30mm to be killed frontally. The flanks are still too weak to resist 30mm APFSDS afaik.
Even IF 30mm IFVs are outgunned - they are supposed to co-operate with tanks that use 120mm guns.

So what's the point of IFV guns larger than 30mm? Higher calibres are used at a high price.
A HAPC with 40mm AGL WP/HE-airburst and 14.5mm SLAP/tracer mixed munition weapons could do most IFV jobs - with more dismounts than the typical IFV concept at the same weight.
The only real advantage of autocannons that I see (and that isn't redundant to 120mm) is their potential to be upgraded for local air defense against low-cost UAVs.

Well, a full response would mean repeating all of my article published in the UK Defence Management Journal a couple of months ago (which I naturally assume was instrumental in influencing this decision ). However, most of the points are summarised in THIS article. In a nutshell:

1. MICVs do not necessarily operate with tanks: they are frequently on their own (at least, in the British Army, which is what this is about).

2. MICVs are getting heavier and tougher. The Dutch study which led to the decision to select the 35mm calibre for their CV90/35 concluded that 30mm APFSDS would be inadequate to deal satisfactorily with the latest up-armoured versions of the Russian BMP-3. Bearing in mind the length of time that the new gun will be in service, buying one which is marginal against its opposition at the start looks like false economy.

3. HE Air Burst (an essential part of this procurement) is very expensive (especially the fuzes) so the bigger the bang, the more cost-effective it is. You'd need to fire three 30mm HEAB shells to achieve the same effect as one 40CT, which also answers the point about more limited magazine capacity.

4. The British Army intends to use the same turret to equip FRES Recce, which needs its gun to counter enemy recce vehicles, so it needs to have a high level of AP performance.

30mm is now the new baseline for light AFV vehicles (wheeled as well as tracked) with very few new projects or upgrades using 25mm. An increasing number of MICV projects is moving up to 35mm or 40mm.

I entirely agree that the calibre of the MICV cannon is of less importance to the US Army, which is blessed with a relative abundance of heavy support weapons, and to the Russians, who happen to have a 100mm gun sitting alongside their 30mm...

It's in the end a matter of doctrine.
IFV development is not a purely technical prograss. Engineers should not be allowed to blindly follow an upward spiral.

IFVs are about infantry; IFV vs. IFV combat is extremely rare and only a very tiny part of an IFV's mission profile.
Mobility/protection/fire support for dismounts is the core mission, not AFV vs AFV duels.

BMP-3 with heavy ERA would be dealed with by ATGM, artillery, bombs and 120mm.

Sure MICV vs MICV combat has been extremely rare to date, but what weapon systems are used for now isn't really the issue. Latest generation tank vs tank battles are also extremely rare. So are latest generation fighter plane vs fighter plane. And latest generation warships firing missiles at each other. Does that mean that such combat should be ignored in their design? On the contrary, the possibility of such combat is what drives their design.

Dealing with enemy light armour is one of the tasks of an MICV's cannon. If it were not, there would be no point in having one: a 40mm grenade launcher would provide the necessary infantry fire support.

And don't forget that as far as the British Army is concerned, the same gun is intended to arm a recce vehicle for which armour penetration is much more important.

I find it hard believe that study saying a larger caliber than 30mm would be needed to deal with the latest BMP-3. Perhaps if they want to punch through the ERA and armor with one shot. Otherwise a burst of 30mm APFSDS fire should take out the ERA and cut right through.