British Army Trials and Development Units

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Gabriele »

Mirroring the US Army's own approach, in practice. The British Army has a team space reserved in the US own Trials and Development events, and this will reciprocate that.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by arfah »

.......................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Gabriele »

arfah wrote:
Gabriele wrote:Mirroring the US Army's own approach, in practice. The British Army has a team space reserved in the US own Trials and Development events, and this will reciprocate that.
An infantry team from the US Army will also be involved in the trials
Exactly. A way to reciprocate the US Army favor. A good way to cooperate... let's just hope something good comes out of it, and not just in the test phase.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

May be , with better sensors/ 360-view, the time is now to repeat this (Swedish) concept with a 120mm gun (130; the new Rhenmetall piece?) using a Ch2 hull and drivetrain (even power should be OK, with weight going down):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lbswAiIUNQE/U ... /UDES3.jpg

Looks like the supply vehicle is articulated, but you could make it "optionally manned" so that taking up protected firing position by the gun itself becomes easier.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Andy-M »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:May be , with better sensors/ 360-view, the time is now to repeat this (Swedish) concept with a 120mm gun (130; the new Rhenmetall piece?) using a Ch2 hull and drivetrain (even power should be OK, with weight going down):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lbswAiIUNQE/U ... /UDES3.jpg

Looks like the supply vehicle is articulated, but you could make it "optionally manned" so that taking up protected firing position by the gun itself becomes easier.
How about something like the Falcon Turret the Jordanians have put on Challenger 1, bigger gun as you say and with Chobham armour.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is currently into its 3rd development iteration
"Up to 17 rounds can be stowed in the bustle autoloader. Loading mechanism and ready-to-use ammunition are separated from the crew."

I think the initial concept was too much of a modern day "Sturm" - focussed on anti-tank duty, but with limited rounds (w/o the crew leaving armour cover).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by RetroSicotte »

Falcon Turret isn't unmanned though. It's just a low crew position, they're still in the turret itself.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I would be amazed, though, if the autoloader could be replenished under armour, in such a restricted space?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by RetroSicotte »

It's not impossible in theory. I'd have to confirm this but I think the Leclerc's can be. It's just very awkward and requires turning the turret. It's not an inherantly unusual thing, the Leopard 2 for example has to turn its turret 90 degrees away to replenish its turret stocks every 15-18 shots. (Sources differ)

So no concrete answer, but it's not an impossibility.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not an impossibility, either, that nxt-gen tanks could be on wheels, using in-wheel fluid drive motors.

Check this out (so should the Development Unit)
"The system, Ferox CEO Troy Wheeler tells us over Skype from his Perth office, can handle insanely high torques. The motors in the Azaris[6-wheel all-terrain proto] could handle up to 500 lb-ft (678 Nm) per wheel if they were attached to a motor that could put that kind of torque out, and they've got bigger units tested up to 850 lb-ft (1,152 Nm). Four of those would happily drive your average giant Haulpak mining truck.

They're also incredibly efficient, the pump and motors operating at an impressive 98 percent efficiency without running the high pressures or temperatures traditionally associated with hydraulic drive systems."
https://newatlas.com/ferox-azaris-in-wh ... ead%20more
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by RetroSicotte »

The problem with wheels for MBTs in that form is the ride height has to be very high. Wheeled units are very tall if they are to have the size of wheels for that weight (60+ tonnes) and obstacle clearance of a tank. You end up with a very high vehicle that is exposed and unable to make use of hull down.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Lord Jim »

Probably the best you could get is the Italian Centauro Mk2, but this platform still falls way short on protection.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote:Probably the best you could get is the Italian Centauro Mk2, but this platform still falls way short on protection.
If you are trying to use it as a like-for-like replacement for an MBT then sure, not if you know to play to its strengths though.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Lord Jim »

I really like how the Italians are developing their Cavalry units using the Centauro variants as the core. Hopefully someone at the MoD is taking notes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Cavalry units using the Centauro variants as the core.
Someone has "been taking notes" as in the 'better days' before 2014 (May 2012, more exactly) this was reported by army-technology.com:
"The Russian Army is testing the B1 Centauro 8×8 wheeled tank, built by Finnmeccanica subsidiary Oto-Melara at a Moscow Region proving ground.

The spokesman for the company was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying that the first two vehicles, armed with 105mm and 125mm guns, have arrived in Novorossiysk and are currently being evaluated by the army.

"Two more Centauros with 120mm and 30mm guns will also join the trials in another six weeks," the spokesman said. "The tanks will take part in laboratory, driving and firing trials."

Field trials are scheduled to be complete by the end of the year, following which Russia will consider creating a joint venture for production of the tank with an enterprise from the Russian military-industrial complex. "
- the 120 mm is now Centauro II, but we never got to hear how it managed the 125mm gun (the same as used on current Russian tanks)

Since then tracks and divisions have prevailed over wheels and brigades
- which is not to say that the concept would not have been proved in the above trials
- more like: if you want to ramp up quickly, continue to make what you already have production lines for. Think of the outcome of Battle of Britain if we had decided to switch all Hurricane production lines to Spitfires, in one go

What I did not know is that Oman has Centauros, on the side of Chally2s. They did not figure in the photos from the recent large-ish exercise; a trial of sorts.
- an opportunity lost? pitching two differently configured forces against each other
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by Lord Jim »

It will be interesting as the British Army conduct their trials and training towards to goal of establishing the "Strike" Brigade(s) whether they incorporate platforms currently not on order or planned to see if they are needed or not for the formations to be effective. For example at the simpler end of things, can the formation rely on dismounted ATGW teams in an environment where hostile artillery is a real issue? At the higher end does the formation need both integral direct and indirect fire capability? I really hope the MoD takes the opportunity to look beyond what ahs already been announced, as the "Strike" Brigade(s) are going to be at the forefront of the Army for years to come. Of course the MDP and the possible enlarged MIV buy could change everything. I would if the possibility existed see the two Armoured Infantry and two "Strike" brigades replaced by three Mechanised Brigades and two independent Recce Regiments. The Mechanised Brigades being one Armoured, three mechanised and one Artillery Regiment.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Trials and Development Units.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A month in a muddy field, somewhere on the Salisbury Plain has produced new competition for a slice of the army's part (£ 22 bn) of the EP cake:

"

Over 200 troops — made up of infantry, marines, engineers, airmen as well as U.S. Army personnel — were equipped with a variety of robotic and autonomous systems with the aim of improving areas such as combat mass, soldier lethality and overall information gathering.

For example, in one scenario, soldiers used robotic engineering vehicles to clear an obstacle, while a small quadcopter flew overhead to provide infrared imagery before armored infantry rolled in to take an enemy position. Robotic systems with varying levels of autonomy were a key part of the exercise, ranging from radar-equipped drones for detecting buried IEDs, to small two-wheeled robots that are thrown into buildings to search for enemy fighters.

The head of the British army, Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith, has directed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to speed up the fielding of technology used during the exercise. “His direction to me is very clear,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Tickell, director of capability for the British army. “He wants to see some of this kit in the hands of the field army in 12 to 18 months" ["]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/robot ... dy-fields/
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply