UK Defence Forum

Maybe a Boxer fitted with 120mm Nemo would be a better option nice and compact 360 degree traverse can fire flat or ellevate to 70+ degrees

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose if the tanks that receive the 120mm smoothbore are also capable of taking the 130mm

My understanding is that it's far from a drop in replacement. The 4th crewman has to go due to lack of space, and an autoloader installed. So decidedly non trivial.

By the way, the idea of a split purchase is just daft. Apart from anything else, the 130mm gun & its ammo is many, many years away from being qualified.

PS Anyone who took my £2.50 investment tip must now be disappointed (myself included) as The Telegraph carried no more news than what was said in the company update session (as required by the Frankfurt SE).

Ron5 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose if the tanks that receive the 120mm smoothbore are also capable of taking the 130mm

My understanding is that it's far from a drop in replacement. The 4th crewman has to go due to lack of space, and an autoloader installed. So decidedly non trivial.

I thought it was less the size of the gun and more the size of the ammunition. It’s too big to be manually loaded within a turret so you need a an autoloader. You could probably keep the forth man, especially as he need less space if he isn’t reaching for stowed ammunition and the breech.

Still, you’d need to rejig the turret for an autoloader and associated ammunition stowage.

By the way, the idea of a split purchase is just daft. Apart from anything else, the 130mm gun & its ammo is many, many years away from being qualified.

Certainly the army could do with a little less reaching for the stars and a little more getting some actual hardware.

mr.fred wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose if the tanks that receive the 120mm smoothbore are also capable of taking the 130mm

My understanding is that it's far from a drop in replacement. The 4th crewman has to go due to lack of space, and an autoloader installed. So decidedly non trivial.

I thought it was less the size of the gun and more the size of the ammunition. It’s too big to be manually loaded within a turret so you need a an autoloader. You could probably keep the forth man, especially as he need less space if he isn’t reaching for stowed ammunition and the breech.

Still, you’d need to rejig the turret for an autoloader and associated ammunition stowage.

By the way, the idea of a split purchase is just daft. Apart from anything else, the 130mm gun & its ammo is many, many years away from being qualified.

Certainly the army could do with a little less reaching for the stars and a little more getting some actual hardware.

As I understand it, the 4th man goes to give room for sufficient number of reloads carried in the autoloader. In fact, RM believes the 130mm gun is best suited for an unmanned turret.

Looks like Jordan snatched the gold medal, Russia took the silver
https://i2.wp.com/www.offiziere.ch/wp-c ... =360%2C140
and the Germans (wait a minute, if we order quick!) the bronze

For those interested in the 130mm gun. Here's a photo that I've not seen before that highlights the difference very nicely ..

... and is a very strong case for getting the "extra" crew member out of the autoloader's (workings) way

What becomes v interesting is the stowed-away rounds, not in the autoloader. How many, if any... and how will they be handled?

Still thinking in terms of a manned turret; crew in a hull 'citadel' would create a lot of space.

British and German officials have agreed to expand scope of military cooperation including the 'Eurotank' as one potential area of exploration. Apparently the Germans are happy to have us more involved but the French are expected to be resistant to it

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... operation/

Defiance wrote:British and German officials have agreed to expand scope of military cooperation including the 'Eurotank' as one area of exploration. Apparently the Germans are happy to have us more involved but the French are expected to be resistant to it

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... operation/

I would think the UK has a lot to offer in the areas of armor, vehicle electronic architecture, and sensors. An Anglo-german program would actually make more sense than the current link up.

Defiance wrote:Apparently the Germans are happy to have us more involved but the French are expected
to be resistant to it

Ron5 wrote:I would think the UK has a lot to offer in the areas of armor, vehicle electronic architecture, and sensors. An Anglo-german program would actually make more sense than the current link up.

Yes, there’s probably a few bits on info left that the Germans could take.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Still thinking in terms of a manned turret; crew in a hull 'citadel' would create a lot of space.

Have you seen the size of vehicles with unmanned turrets vs their manned turret equivalent?
The turret may get smaller but the hull always gets bigger.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Still thinking in terms of a manned turret; crew in a hull 'citadel' would create a lot of space.

As far as MBTs are concerned an unmanned turret saves very little space within the hull. This comes down to the swept area of the gun including recoil, which also has an effect on the size of the turret ring. With a manned turret the crew being either side of the gun, take up space in the hull that needs to be their anyway. Of course an unmanned turret can be narrower, though you still need to access the turret for servicing. Then the problem is fitting the crew in the hull, which generally means a longer and/or higher hull.

If you take the two tanks (perhaps Merkava comes into the same league) where protection has been prioritised in the 'design triangle', then
Ch2 comes in with 8.3 x 3.5 m,
and Armata with 8.7 x 3.5 m

Is that a notable difference? Height (as in 'being a target') should be considered too.

Now, put them on the weighing scales Shaving off tens of tons...

But back to where we started from. If the use of autoloader has advantages, how do you best handle other than the 'ready rounds' in it?
Building on Ron's photo, the speculation about the awkward looking turret of the Armata was (at the time the design being revealed) that it had been 'prepped' for going up from the 125mm to 140mm.
- should that be a realistic option... then the handling of rounds will have to remain practical

Have our German friends prepped the turret (changed once in a life time) for a smooth change of the gun, should that be required. We know how the testing with the previous (current) turret went

Next tank will probably be with a fully automated turret with a 130mm, with a crew of two in the hull with dual controls and full VR visibility outside the tank combining the data from various EO and Radar systems and assisted by AI for increased situational awareness, linked into both a Theatre ISTAR network and the battlefield intranet.

If we're going for an unmanned turret we may as well throw our lot fully into the digital video situational awareness and remove any direct vision requirement on the driver.

That means the crew can all sit in the rear of the hull, engine in the front.

Thought engine at rear also helped thermals and maintenance?

Lord Jim wrote:with a crew of two

A 2 man crew would be a bad idea,
It was a bad idea in the past, its a bad idea today and I cant see it being anything but a bad idea in the future.

Don't forget they would have an AI "R2-D2", as the third crew member!

andrew98 wrote:Thought engine at rear also helped thermals and maintenance?

Exhaust to rear certainly helps thermals, cooling matrix can be an issue too. Maintenance, well that depends on turret overhangs.

Lord Jim wrote:a fully automated turret with a 130mm, with a crew of two in the hull with dual controls and full VR visibility outside the tank combining the data from various EO and Radar systems and assisted by AI for increased situational awareness

Did you copy that from the Carmel concept, except with a typo: adding 1 in front of the likely caliber of 30?

It was my inspiration as the IDF seems to be seriously exploring this route. In all seriousness though this maybe the route to take if you want optionally manned vehicles as with a resident AI and remote access to the sensor feeds such a platform would basically be a ground based Reaper.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... 3-upgrade/

148 for £800m. At about £5.5m each that seems cheap.

Shame, would have loved some gold plated Rheinmetall Rh-130 action

Future Tanknology !!! such a good phase

[quote="mr.fred"148 for £800m. At about £5.5m each that seems cheap.[/quote]

That is without the APS (60 of them, apparently) and probably without changes to the engines.