h*tp://www.defensenews.com/dsei/video.php?id=74

Has more information on the three contenders that had hardware at DSEI. The fourth, General Dynamics, did not bring hardware to the show and were therefore very boring.

The Finmeccanica turret seems to create a shot trap effect. While this is not a concern in modern MBTs because the wedge is designed to shear a penetrator, not all IFV guns use APDS.

 

2A42, in particular (the most likely threat gun) uses traditional AP as well as APDS, but the AP ammunition is much more widespread, especially amongst threat nations.

 

I like the BAE turret myself, but I'm somewhat surprized that none mount an ATGM. Air Burst Munitions are certainly a vast improvement v soft targets, but ATGWs provide the potential for thermobaric warheads.

 

Certainly, all three options remedy the Warrior's greatest deficiencies (no gun stabilization and RARDEN's clip-loading feed)

For a start, any turret bigger than the current one has to be raised to clear certain obstacles on the hull roof. So the turret ring will be well protected from direct or ricochet rounds. On top of that, the hull roof will be fairly thick; so as to stop 155mm airburst, which is quite a substantial threat, and support the weight of the turret. Bearing that in mind, I doubt that a ricochet 30mm AP will have enough energy to go through that after a bounce The 2A42 firing AP is surprisingly weak in this regard, barely more powerful than a 14.5mm round. That's assuming that those frontal armour plates are the sort of material that will actually allow a ricochet.

Regarding ATGM the Selex turret, being, AIUI, a modified HITFIST design, will have the capability for ATGM to be mounted on it, and the LM team are offering Javelin as an upgrade path. GD probably won't, and BAEsystems probably won't either.

One thing worth noting is that the HITFIST turret carries nearly four times as many ready-rounds as the BAE turret. The 40mm CTA is more destructive, but it depends on what you are trying to do with your tank. Plus the Mk44 is more widely supported than the CTA.

I suspect you know a bit more about British kit than I

 

The Warrior's greatest shortcoming, IMO, was the lack of firepower, and all of the new turrets amply remedy this. I agree that the armour composition will not necessarily permit riccochets into the turret roof, but until I know more about it I will assume that risk. Doubtless that Finmeccanica have given the matter a bit of thought as well.

Same here mate, but Russian/German kit always fascinated me more than American/British/French kit

At 30x170mm, it is approximately equal in weight of shell and power as the 30x173mm round used by the Oerliken. Stabilisation is a matter of gun control equipment (GCE), not the gun.

However:

There is no in-service APFSDS round for RARDEN.

There is no Airburst Munition (ABM) existing or in development for RARDEN.

3-round clip is vastly inferior to dual belt-feed.

There is no upgrade path to 40mm via RARDEN.

I'm fairly sure that CTA is not a new technology, it is just technically difficult. Plus, it isn't the same space - those CT cartridges are fat compared to a 30mm round.

The turret upgrade is a full system - it is much more than just the gun, so all the little extras have to be taken into account.

I would point out that comparing ATGM in the armour defeating stakes with the 40mm CTA is ludicrous. The AP round for 40mm CTA will defeat 150mm or so at 1500m. An ATGM will defeat 900mm+ out to 2500m+. More importantly, ATGM will hit out to 2500m+, which is not something that you can say about autocannon gunnery from an IFV.

I am not saying that the existing weapon is one which we should keep in service - I fully agree that this turret upgrade for the Warrior is a grand idea.  That said, given the current threats we face, there is no need to rush the new turret into service and buy an off the shelf system.  The current weapon is soldiering on fine for the moment, and so we can spare the time and expense to upgrade it properly. 

Concerning the quote above, I do not agree with this.  I have heard through reliable accounts that Javelin does some funky things, and am not of the school of thought that ATGM's are the answer.  On paper Javelin andsimilar systems may be well and good at destroying tanks and bunkers, however they are also very expensive and complex pieces of equipment, which through this reduces the real training time a soldier will recieve on the system.  A 30mm gun may be slightly anemic in destroying MBT's, however they have been used for the tasking with success against Iraqi T72's and T55's.  MBT's, and especially those we can expect to face in todays and tomorrows conflicts are not immune to anything smaller than 120mm.  7.62mm will go through the rear armour of a T55 with you hammer it enough (I am again reliably informed, although am yet to see it myself).  40mm, using modern APDS sabot munitions should be ample to handle most armour targets at realistic ranges.  The 2 pounder (40mm) gun of WWII vintage wasn't at all bad at destroying Panzer III's and IV's, it's lack of capability was in its lack of HE munitions.  I also do not agree with the marketing hype of "buy our off the shelf 30mm system now, and if you need to you can upgrade to a 40mm barrel later", as lets face it, in British service we will not see funding for that 40mm upgrade. 

 

Neither will we see funding for Javelin mounts on our IFV.  If a heavy armour threat exists in theatre, we will see Javelin teams deployed, and operating from Warrior - we will not see Javelin on Warrior itself.  In any case this is British army policy in using ATGM's teams, going back to Milan teams operating out of Spartan.  I don't see us rushing to replace Swingfire with anything either now that Brimstone looks like an airborne system alone.

 

As such I think Warrior with a 40mm barrel from the get-go is the best way forwards.  In the long run this allows for a relative low cost in kit, and an affordable weapon to train with (40mm being cheaper than Javelin in live fire), while giving Warrior ample firepower to serve aloneside Chally 2, or independently.

30mm guns are not created equal (ask the chap who thought that he could use a RARDEN in a range meant for 30mm Aden) especially where ammunition is concerned. A 30mm APDS may struggle, but 30mm APFSDS is a whole different kettle of fish. 30mm AP (from the Russian 2A42) is scarcely more powerful against armour than 14.5mm HMG.

If the current system is fine, why is there interest in bringing the programme forward?

"30mm now, 40mm later if needed" isn't the best, but it's better than a completely unproven system (Gun, ammunition, ammunition handling) that is not supported by anyone else.

There is much more to the various schemes than just the gun - things like integrating communications, air-conditioning, power budgets, situational awareness, gun control equipment, protection, interface with the existing hull, internal access and stowage.

On the note of adopting the 40mm gun being questionable,

remember, the British managed to get the rest of NATO to standardize for a few decades on 105mm guns in MBTs...

155mm became the artillery norm, to the point that a large portion of NATO accepted STANAGs and MoUs that dictated everyone use the same chamber volumes (or at least the same shells),

not to mention how many other STANAGs and MoUs existed for scores of other ammunition compatibilities.

 

Given enough political push, and more importantly a shoot off that shows a number of participating nations that the 40 CTA is superior to all others (but here I'm not saying it is or isn't), certainly the potential is there that the 40mm CTA gun could become the next NATO standard.

It's difficult to say so, though, as there isn't now any concensus between nations as it is, what with several using 25x137mm  guns, while plenty of others have recently been accepted the 30x173mm as AFV armament.

 

The recent interest in airburst rounds may be the deal sealer (which also in no small part depends on having a compatible fire control system to utilize the technology).

40mm CTA is all very well on paper, but it would tie us in to a single-source supplier for all ammunition and no ammunition commonality with our allies. Any ammunition upgrades would come out of our pockets and we couldn't sell them to anyone else to recoup the cost.

 

Ammunition commontality with allies is fairly worthless anyway these days, it is a relic requirement of the Cold War.  In WWII it would have been nice, but it certainly isn't to be rated highly.  How many suppliers can offer rounds to us depends on the details of the technologies copy-right, but quite frankly, if we needed to we could tell BAE Systems to go jump and buy rounds off the Chinese if it came to it.  I fail to see why we can't sell 40mm CTW to foreign nations also, to recoup the cost as you say, or just to further entrench the weapon.

 

 

Just my memory here, but I seem to remember thinking that 30mm Aden was in fact a rather poor aircraft cannon, while the Russian 2A42 was rather good, hence its use on both IFV's and helicopter gunships?  I don't know munitions well enough to comment why being fin stabilised is better than basic DS rounds.

If the current system is fine, why is there interest in bringing the programme forward?"30mm now, 40mm later if needed" isn't the best, but it's better than a completely unproven system (Gun, ammunition, ammunition handling) that is not supported by anyone else

 

There is much more to the various schemes than just the gun - things like integrating communications, air-conditioning, power budgets, situational awareness, gun control equipment, protection, interface with the existing hull, internal access and stowage.

 

Warrior isn't broke, it doesn't need fixing, it just could use improving to keep it a viable system for the next 20 years.

The US, on the new Marine vehicle, USN ships, AC130s

Germany, on the Puma

Numerous countries, on the CV90 and Pandur vehicles

So I would be more inclined to believe that a NATO standard autocannon would be more likely to be a Mk44-alike, chambered for 30x173mm, rather than an Anglo-French proprietary system.

Yimmy,

The Aden round comment was a warning about conflating "30mm" cannon. It referenced a story I was told of an engineer, having been told that an indoor range was qualified for 30mm (Aden), tried out a RARDEN in it, as all 30mm are the same. Damn near dropped the roof on his head when the overpressure pushed the walls outward. I would also point out that the Aden ammunition is currently being used, with great success, in the M230 cannon slung under Apaches.

The 2A42 reference was aimed at modern AFV sales brochures. "proof against 30mm" seems to mean "proof against 2A42 AP", not "proof against 30mm APFSDS from the best cannon"

The difference between APDS and APFSDS is, AIUI, this:

APDS relies on gyroscopic effect for stabilisation, so there is a limit to the ratio of rotational inertias along and across the axis, thereby limiting the length/diameter ratio.

APFSDS, being stabilised by fins, can have a much greater l/d ratio, and consequently better armour-piercing effect (more mass, less drag, therefore more KE, concentrated in a smaller area.)

The interest in bringing WLIP forward was reported either on defensenews or Jane's. The Warrior may not be broken, but neither was my last computer, or my last mobile phone. I needed greater capability.

It remains to be seen how much BAE are willing to muck about. A year ago they were hands-down favourite. They seem to have let that slip, with competent compatition now on the scene. New, available, funding? Err, not terribly likely.

Not so much pinning us down to a weapon system the french are involved in,

but seeing as the BAe powerhouse has a stake in both the Warrior and the Bradley (they bought out UDLP a couple years back),

what does anyone think of the possibility that the US and UK push for their own common project?