Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging?

[My2Cents]

Post 3 of 3 due to length limits
Assume the target is a dug in Mechanized Infantry Team (per article). They don’t indicate what the unit size is, but a company size unit would have 40 to 50 vehicles, of which 30 or so are armored, and 10 would be IFVs assigned to the infantry that could be equipped with CRAM capability. (see FM 71-1 Table of Contents)

• The article estimates it would take 2600 round of HE to destroy 50% of a Mechanized Infantry Team, but does not specify the unit size, but that is 2x what the items before would indicate, so I am guessing it is a battalion. So lets say 1200 rounds to render as non-CRAM equipped unit useless.
  
• For the CRAM equipped unit lets assume that the 5 most likely rounds to hit for each 155mm salvo are engaged with an 80% effective intercept rate. This drives up the kill rate to 1 tank per 15 salvoes (about 1 hour for 3 vehicles), or probably 3600 rounds to render the unit useless (accounting for reduction in intercept efficiency as vehicles are lost, but not allowing for the loss of the central radar vehicle, and which may well be farther back out of range), assuming the ammunition holds out. Note that the artillery will need to reammo many times to achieve the number of rounds required, so it is reasonable for the IFVs to do so as well.

So a CRAM equipped unit might survive 3x longer in combat vs. 155mm tube artillery with dumb HE than one not so equipped. Yes it would be expensive, but still likely to very cost effective.
End multiple post :lam

 

[Waylander]

You should keep several things in mind. Modern Artillery may very well resort to something like SMArt which gives you 2 guided submunitions per round. That complicates effective interception a bit as a battery firing for 1 minute puts 160 submunitions into the air.

Other things to consider are the implications of the turrets automatically reacting to enemy incoming rounds. You don't want your turret to spin around wildly and lighting up the sky while being anywhere close to the enemy. The same applies to being dug in in a camouflaged position. Reacting to any probing fire will light your position up like a christmas tree. The most usefull situations might be well behind ones own lines in a ready position or during a march. A problem ist that such targets tend to get the attention of MLRS systems. Getting fired upon by them makes target deconfliction a little bit more difficult...

Artillery tends to fire onto enemie frontline positions while contact is established or imminent. Diminishing your ammo and wrecking your situational awareness is not desireable in such situations.

That IFV turrets are slower than hard-kill systems and SPAAGs is a valid argument. Quick reaction would need upgrades to existing IFV turret systems.

As for reloading. Reloading anywhere close to the frontlines is a totally different kettle of fish than a SPG battery reloading somewhere in the back.

 

[the concerned]

Hasn't Israel just announced that it will replace its artillery guns with rocket systems in the future. Would it not be possible to replace main guns with rockets also in the future.

 

[Firn]

Post 1 of 3 posts due to length limits :lam

Apples and oranges. CRAM is not a replacement for a hard kill suites. Nor is it for stopping an RPG. Probably be effective against an antitank missile, which have 10x to 20x the range, but only 3x the speed, but the real target is artillery shells, rockets, and mortars.

An intercept efficiency of 86%, not bad. Or are you one of those that argues that if the system is not perfect it is worthless? Also, if it is the attack I think it was there were 21 rockets in the salvo, but they ignored the other 14 because they weren’t going near a populated area. Any practical system of this type needs between worthwhile targets and ones that can be ignored.

Sounds like 6 round bursts to me.

I will limit myself to this post about this topic to conserve my time.

Waylander already pointed out some of the technical and tactial challenges, the problems with airspace deconflicting etc. Anyway I will just focus some other issues.

1) C-RAM and Hard-kill suites are different systems but all share considerable technical challenges. I have written already in other posts that there are excellent reasons why they have been developed and why they have been fielded. So far the fielded land-systems have almost only encounter the lower spectrum of C-RAM threats, slow and soft targets like mortar shells and old rockets mostly fired in low numbers with little coordination. Already Soviet doctrine focused on overloading the enemy defense systems with overwhelming missile salvos, and ecently terrorist groups have used a similar approach. Still events like the last one are a magnitude away from a gun or rocket artillery barrage with modern ammunition.

2) The amount of ammunition even with a 35mm guns and AHEAD calculated according to this video is very big. With 6 rounds you are low by a factor of ten, if you count the time of the burst and look at the thermal image. A ROF of 1000/min means roughly 15 per sec. in this case they shoot a bit over 2 sec and with 2 guns firing it means 60 rounds for a single relative slow mortar round. One can see the long bursts in the Thermals. This fits nicely with the fact that C-RAM already in use needs (even) longer bursts to achieve a high prob. hit.

In the end the expenses, the technical and tactical challenges are very considerable and we will see if something similar gets developed and implemented and if it fits METT-TC.

 

[Waylander]

No and no.

Minimum firing distance, ammo change within a short time, continious fire capability, ammo costs, self defence capabilities, etc. are all aspects which make the substitiution of tube artillery with rocket artillery not feasible. The same way tube artillery can't be a substitute for MRLS.

Look at it as somewhat related to how rotary and fixed wing ground attack aircrafts can't substitute but complement each other.

IIRC the Israelis are looking fore new tube artillery systems and the Donar is a candidate.

 

[Firn]

IIRC the Israelis are looking fore new tube artillery systems and the Donar is a candidate.

Perhaps on Donar/AGM turret on the Merkava IV chassis, perhaps licensed built in the USA partly financed by the German tax payer?

The AGM looks a bit tall though. Anyway I guess that it will be a 155/52.

 

[Waylander]

The ASCOD is built by the european subsidiarys of General Dynamics so building Donar in the US and procuring it via FMS should be possible.

The Donar would also offer a much smaller crew requirement than other 155mm L/52 SPGs. Something the IDF may find very usefull due to their manpower limitations.

 

[Firn]

The ASCOD is built by the european subsidiarys of General Dynamics so building Donar in the US and procuring it via FMS should be possible.

The Donar would also offer a much smaller crew requirement than other 155mm L/52 SPGs. Something the IDF may find very usefull due to their manpower limitations.

The Namer is also built in the US, making use of the FMS. The internal mechanism of the AGM module is an evolved and automated version of the one used for the PzH2000, thus it should be possible to go for a traditional SPG form with the benefits of the evolution. The K9 SPG comes with quite some political baggage, making a deal difficult.

I have no idea how much the Donar costs, how expensive the ASCOD is or the Merkava chassis or how much it would cost to adapt it. In any case a proven, adaptable indigenous platform shared across a great deal of the army, forming a broad family of vehicles will greatly facilitate future upgrades and modifications and ease the logistics, training and repairings. In general I guess the IDF will go heavy instead of light, considering the specific doctrine and strategic situation.

As a sidenote the Puma Combat engineering vehicles is based on an Shö't which in turn is a modified Centurion. Sooner or later it will also be replaced.

 

[Feanor]

Jup, it would.

Protection is one thing with which I agree wholeheary with the Israelis. There is no reason why the MechInf should be much less well protected than their tank brothers. But I think we are also seeing a trend here. The Puma is 43 tons which is alot. The CV90 also got much heavier with the years.

IMO the russians are actually doing it right and the Israelis would do it right, too, if they would make a proper IFV out of it. Ideas about SAMPSON 30mm/Spike weapons stations are circulating, though.

What kind of combat module would you think ideal for them? You talked about Bradleys providing AT capability, to ATGMs are must, yes? And naturally an auto-cannon, and a coaxial 7.62. Do the IFVs need a bigger gun, like the Bakcha-U module? Or would that be unnecessary, because of MBT presence?

 

[Waylander]

The size of the Autocannon is always kind of a diffiult topic. 30mm is IMHO minimum as below this payload for modern programmable and penetration for APFSDS is questionable.

But the bigger guns may not provide lots of ammo. Both amount of ready ammo as well as overall ammo reserve. Take the CV9035 for example. It only carries 35 rounds in the ready rack. So somewhere between 30-40mm but finding the right calibre is a mysterious art.

ATGMs are also somewhat of a disputable topic. I for one think that the advantages they offer far outweight the perceived disadvantages.
They offer effective long range firepower against any type of vehicle. They also add some general AT capability for example when a combined arms company team lies in ambush. Getting a handfull of ATGMs into the air in the beginning of the ambush to take out more enemy tanks of the attacking echelon with the first salvo.

It is also a handy tool when the IFV is for some reason alone on a conventional battlefield and when the IFVs operate alone in assymetric environments like in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The disadvantages are costs as well as the fear of the crews thinking of themselves as tanks. The latter is IMHO easily coped with by proper training.

As usualy a Coax-MG is a no-brainer.

 

[Firn]

The size of the Autocannon is always kind of a diffiult topic. 30mm is IMHO minimum as below this payload for modern programmable and penetration for APFSDS is questionable.

But the bigger guns may not provide lots of ammo. Both amount of ready ammo as well as overall ammo reserve. Take the CV9035 for example. It only carries 35 rounds in the ready rack. So somewhere between 30-40mm but finding the right calibre is a mysterious art..

The size was and will always be a compromise. You mentioned already some factors, one might add the importance to also keep in mind that:
a) In general the armor of enemy AFV tends to increase over time
b) The calibre of other systems like anti-aircraft guns/systems should be taken into account, if it fits the parameters, unless it will be phased out or upgunned.

The Italian army bought for example an incredible amount of SIDAM 25, with four 25 mm Oerlikon KDA autocannons and the same weapon is for example also used on ships. So considering b) and the stockpiles of ammo going for the same gun on the Dardo and Freccia makes sense, however a) is a big question mark.

 

[the concerned]

the statement about the percentages of defence supplies actually highlights my point. Combined the three european countries still sell less equipment than Russia and the USA but we have three lots of development costs which isn't sustainable especially now that Chinese hardware is catching up fast.Under the latest defence cuts the UK will only have 150 tanks which would make it near on impossible to justify the costs to develop its replacement. Like i said we need to work together before we get left behind

 

[RobWilliams]

the statement about the percentages of defence supplies actually highlights my point. Combined the three european countries still sell less equipment than Russia and the USA but we have three lots of development costs which isn't sustainable especially now that Chinese hardware is catching up fast.Under the latest defence cuts the UK will only have 150 tanks which would make it near on impossible to justify the costs to develop its replacement. Like i said we need to work together before we get left behind

Using Waylanders figures, France + Germany + UK = 22% compared to Russias 23%, if that still means that Europe isn't competitive to you then i don't know what is. I'm failing to see how it highlights your point, if there was a 10-15% gap then thats different, but 1% suddenly makes Europe not competitive?

IIRC SDSR 2010 actually makes CR2 numbers just over 200 rather than 150 and you have to bear in mind that we are in an economic crisis and these numbers are much lower than their peak and AFAIK the CR2 isn't sheduled to be replaced till after 2030 (thats the figure in my mind, could anyone else confirm/deny this?)

Using Wiki it appears the whole sum of CR2 numbers delivered to the Army totally is around 400, so my point is that just because our fleet at the moment will be around 200 doesn't mean we will only produce around 200 and will never increase that number at all.

 

[Feanor]

Using Waylanders figures, France + Germany + UK = 22% compared to Russias 23%, if that still means that Europe isn't competitive to you then i don't know what is. I'm failing to see how it highlights your point, if there was a 10-15% gap then thats different, but 1% suddenly makes Europe not competitive?

But they're not together. Britain has the Chally 2, Germany the Leo 2, and France the LeClerc. Russia has a single tank, the T-90A. So lower development costs, a single centralized production facility, meaning economies of scale. His whole point is that they need to work together, to produce a single joint replacement, otherwise they risk losing their shares in the global MBT market.

EDIT: 13.2 billion dollars in arms were in fact delivered in 2011 by Russia. Planned deliveries were for 11.6 billion, but de-facto ended up higher.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/163799.html

 

[Feanor]

The size of the Autocannon is always kind of a diffiult topic. 30mm is IMHO minimum as below this payload for modern programmable and penetration for APFSDS is questionable.

But the bigger guns may not provide lots of ammo. Both amount of ready ammo as well as overall ammo reserve. Take the CV9035 for example. It only carries 35 rounds in the ready rack. So somewhere between 30-40mm but finding the right calibre is a mysterious art.

ATGMs are also somewhat of a disputable topic. I for one think that the advantages they offer far outweight the perceived disadvantages.
They offer effective long range firepower against any type of vehicle. They also add some general AT capability for example when a combined arms company team lies in ambush. Getting a handfull of ATGMs into the air in the beginning of the ambush to take out more enemy tanks of the attacking echelon with the first salvo.

It is also a handy tool when the IFV is for some reason alone on a conventional battlefield and when the IFVs operate alone in assymetric environments like in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The disadvantages are costs as well as the fear of the crews thinking of themselves as tanks. The latter is IMHO easily coped with by proper training.

As usualy a Coax-MG is a no-brainer.

Do you think a single or multiple auto-cannons would be preferable? Also the bigger chassis, MBT-based, would allow them to carry more ammo wouldn't it? Also would a bigger main gun help or not? Something similar to the Bakcha-U module, but with perhaps bigger ammo storage, or an external ATGM launcher to allow for regular size ATGMs?

 

[RobWilliams]

But they're not together. Britain has the Chally 2, Germany the Leo 2, and France the LeClerc. Russia has a single tank, the T-90A. So lower development costs, a single centralized production facility, meaning economies of scale. His whole point is that they need to work together, to produce a single joint replacement, otherwise they risk losing their shares in the global MBT market.

True, but i'm of the opinion that a joint venture in Europe would never suit all parties so it would ultimately end up an MBT which is a decent tank as it stands, but not specifically suited to the needs of nations.

Thats why in the case of Russia, the T-90A is suited for Russian armoured doctrine so its pretty simple. Trying to get an MBT which would conform to France/UK/German doctrines would mainly result in the partner countries producing a mediocre product which isn't quite as good as what they could have done themselves.

As it stands, Germany/UK don't see the need for an autoloader whereas France does. France/Germany prefer lighter and more mobile tanks compared to the heavily armoured hulks the UK prefers. The issue of the main gun would be pointless as a new tank would give the UK an oppertunity to go smoothbore.

I don't see the UK paying for an MBT which isn't specifically suited to its needs or its doctrine and I don't see the UK going along with French/German design (IIRC the Challenger was selected over the Leopard 2 + Leclerc)

Whilst a joint venture sounds good in theory, to me it seems like it would ultimately end up in a massive series of compromises.

 

[Feanor]

True, but i'm of the opinion that a joint venture in Europe would never suit all parties so it would ultimately end up an MBT which is a decent tank as it stands, but not specifically suited to the needs of nations.

Thats why in the case of Russia, the T-90A is suited for Russian armoured doctrine so its pretty simple. Trying to get an MBT which would conform to France/UK/German doctrines would mainly result in the partner countries producing a mediocre product which isn't quite as good as what they could have done themselves.

As it stands, Germany/UK don't see the need for an autoloader whereas France does. France/Germany prefer lighter and more mobile tanks compared to the heavily armoured hulks the UK prefers. The issue of the main gun would be pointless as a new tank would give the UK an oppertunity to go smoothbore.

I don't see the UK paying for an MBT which isn't specifically suited to its needs or its doctrine and I don't see the UK going along with French/German design (IIRC the Challenger was selected over the Leopard 2 + Leclerc)

Whilst a joint venture sounds good in theory, to me it seems like it would ultimately end up in a massive series of compromises.

Is it better to have a 4th gen. MBT that is a major series of compromises, or to be stuck with 3rd gen MBTs for another 20 years?

 

[Waylander]

First I don't think that UK, French and German needs differ that much. It's not like the three current MBTs differ that much to not being interchangeable.

IMHO everybody in europe would want to go with an autoloader and a three men crew as manning costs are a serious problem for every EU country out there. The same applies to the idea of keeping the weight low by trimming the hull (like with the Leclerc).

What I don't see is that a joint development will automatically end up running smoother and being cheaper than a national solution. Recent joint projects are not that stellar in comparison. The muddling of so many different interests tends to eat up the proposed advantages of big joint programs.

During the height of cold war with the Sovjets breathing into NATO's neck neither the US and Germany nor the UK and Germany could get their acts together to produce a joint MBT...

Maybe it is even more desirable for Germany to wait a little bit more until others, like the UK, eliminate themselves from the competition...

 

[the concerned]

Take a look at the chinese Type-95 isn't that as good as any tank but significantly lower costs .Maybe france and Germany have good reasons to go it alone but like i said with just 150 tanks the UK can't afford to .

 

[Feanor]

First I don't think that UK, French and German needs differ that much. It's not like the three current MBTs differ that much to not being interchangeable.

IMHO everybody in europe would want to go with an autoloader and a three men crew as manning costs are a serious problem for every EU country out there. The same applies to the idea of keeping the weight low by trimming the hull (like with the Leclerc).

What I don't see is that a joint development will automatically end up running smoother and being cheaper than a national solution. Recent joint projects are not that stellar in comparison. The muddling of so many different interests tends to eat up the proposed advantages of big joint programs.

During the height of cold war with the Sovjets breathing into NATO's neck neither the US and Germany nor the UK and Germany could get their acts together to produce a joint MBT...

Maybe it is even more desirable for Germany to wait a little bit more until others, like the UK, eliminate themselves from the competition...

You think Germany will be the sole MBT producer for European NATO members? That would be interesting to see. It would give them a major built-in market, the equivalent of a national procurement program for a country like the US or Russia. And with those numbers, export orders would be much easier to secure. With the M1 not seeing a replacement anytime soon, it could corner the heavy end of the MBT market (assuming the current Armata project doesn't turn out to be closer to a western-style MBT then to a T-series one).