Showing posts with label gun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun. Show all posts

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Rheinmetall's new 130 mm gun to be presented at Eurosatory

According to Jane's IHS, the new 130 mm smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall will be first unveiled at Eurosatory 2016 in June. The gun will be ready for production by 2025. Also a new turret with the 130 mm gun for the Leopard 2 will be developed.

The new 130 mm smoothbore gun was first announced by Rheinmetall during an investor's meeting in 2015. The gun will also be utilized for the future Main Ground Combat System, which sometimes has been nicknamed "Leopard 3".

Previously we speculated that the choice of developing a new 130 mm calibre instead of reusing the older 140 mm smoothbore gun design of the late-1980s and early-1990s was result of the smaller calibre being compatible with the existing Leopard 2 turret. This seems to have been somewhat confirmed by Jane's, whose article states that "[a] new MBT turret is also being designed", which will be "based on an existing Leopard 2 MBT turret".
This leaves some questions: Will the future turrets be newly built or manufactured from already existing Leopard 2A6 turrets (such as the Leopard 2A5/6 turret was created by remanufacturing old Leopard 2A4 turrets).

The future 130 mm smoothbore gun of the Leopard 2 and MGCS is understood to deliver comparable or even slightly more performance than the old 140 mm smoothbore gun design of the 80s & 90s. Overall the new gun will offer about 50% increased performance and penetration compared to the 120 mm L/55 or an improved version of the L/55 gun.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Upgraded Abrams to feautre XM360 gun and guided ammunition?

In the document "The US Army - COMBAT VEHICLE MODERNIZATION STRATEGY" published by the Army Capabilities Integration Center of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in 2015, there is an interesting passage about the future of the M1 Abrams tank:


"Next-Generation Large Caliber Cannon Technology. The XM360 next-generation 120mm tank cannon integrated with the AAHS will provide the M1 Abrams a capability to fire the next generation of high-energy and smart-tank ammunition at beyond line-of-sight (LOS) ranges. The XM360 could also incorporate remote control operation technologies to allow its integration on autonomous vehicles and vehicles with reduced crew size. For lighter weight vehicles, recoil limitations are overcome by incorporating the larger caliber rarefaction wave gun technology while providing guided, stabilized LOS, course-corrected LOS, and beyond LOS accuracy"


The 120 mm XM360 tank gun was originally designed for the XM1202 Mounted Combat System tank component of the canceled Future Combat Systems (FCS) program of the US Army. It retains the original dimensions of the M256 smoothbore gun (aside from being fitted with a muzzle break to reduce the recoil impulse/force) and is ballistically equivalent to the M256 gun when firing the same ammunition. Due to having an increased pressure limit the XM360 gun can however utilize more powerful KE ammunition. An ammunition data link (ADL) allows the usage of programmable ammunition or more accurate firing (i.e. when the propellant temperature can be taken into consideration by the fire control system). Parts of the barrel and many other components are made of composite materials, which reduces the weight compared to a conventional design. The XM360 is 2100 pounds (952.5 kilograms) lighter than a M256.

XM360 prototype on a mock-up XM1202 hull during Army trials
The XM360E1 is a version of the XM360 specifically designed for the M1 Abrams. Some components of the former M256 gun like the rotor are reused to reduce cost and increase commonality to older M1A2 tanks. It seems very likely that the XM360E1 is actually meant, when the article from TRADOC speaks about the XM360 gun for the M1 Abrams. From the renderings of the XM360 and XM360E1 posted above, the XM360E1 appears to have a slightly longer barrel. However this is no secured information and no official data on the XM360E1 has been published yet. The fact that the XM360E1 looks longer might be result of the perspective or the claims that the XM360 has the same length as M256's are including the muzzle break in the XM360's length, albeit drawings implying otherwise. The XM360E1 might have a barrel length of 46 to 48 calibre then.

The second part of the quote is implying that the US Army has yet to loose interest in developing guided tank ammunition. This means that the Army has either reactivated a formerly canceled development program like the XM943 STAFF or the XM1111 Mid Range Munition (MRM), or the US Army has started a new development program for long range/beyond-LOS guided tank ammunition.

While upgunning the M1 Abrams is certainly a move in the right direction - the Leclerc with it's GIAT CN-120-26 and the Leopard 2A6 with it's Rh 120 L/55 tank gun have already introduced longer barreled tank guns designed to sustain higher operating pressures more than a decade ago - the question remains if the XM360 is enough for the future. The German company Rheinmetall is currently working on an improved 120 mm smoothbore and a new 130 mm smoothbore gun for the Leopard 2 and the future Franco-German main battle tank (MBT), while the new Russian T-14 MBT is being fitted with either a new 125 mm high-performance gun (2A82) or an 152 mm 2A83 gun. It seems that the US tanks might be lacking in the gun department, despite receiving a new gun in the near future. 
The fact that the XM360E1 gun's barrel is rather short might be related to the oscillation and stabilization issues found on the M1A2, when investigation upgrading the M1A2 tank with the Rheinmetall L/55 (M256E1) gun. From 1998 to 2000 the US tested three modified Rheinmetall L/55 guns (and a further 12 barrels produced under licence by TACOM/Watervliet Arsenal) under the designation M256E1. While the Rheinmetall gun was designed to specifically fit into a modified gun mount of the German Leopard 2 tank, the different gun mount and stabilization systems of the M1A2 Abrams had troubles handling the longer and heavier barrel. This would result in a reduced accuracy and required major modifications (including a completely new stabilization system) to fix, which results in inappropriately higher costs for simply upgunning. The same issues arrived when testing the 120 mm XM294 L55 smoothbore gun prototype on the Abrams between 1996 and 1998.

The IDF's Pereh missile carrier is a lot better suited for launching ATGMs than a conventional tank
As far as the guided ammunition is concerned, one should take into account that this has to fit into the XM360 smoothbore gun and into the ammo racks of an M1A2 tank. This means the maximum missile diameter can be 120 milimetres (mm) and the maximum length of a hypothetical gun-launched missile for the Abrams can not exceed ~990 mm (39 inches). Unfortunately the limitations on the missiles size have a negative impact on the possible effectivness: currently all ATGMs are relying on shaped charge (HEAT) or explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads. Modern ATGMs such as the Hellfire, Javelin, PARS 3 LR (TRIGAT), Spike-LR, Kornet, etc. all exceed a diameter of 120 mm, mostly by a rather large amount. The length of long-range high performance ATGMs exceeds 1.5 metres (59 inches). Thus it seems rather unlikely that guided LOS/BLOS ammunition for the M1 Abrams can defeat the frontal armor (in some cases even the side armor) of a current and next-generation tank. Therefore in order to have a high chance at defeating current generation armor, the guided ATGMs have to follow a top-attack design. Even then, a number of current tanks already has enhanced roof protection against top-attack ammunitions (e.g. every Soviet/Russian tank since the 1980s has roof mounted explosive reactive armor). Some variants of the German Leopard 2 aswell as the Israeli Merkava tanks have been fitted with passive roof armor against shaped charges and/or EFPs.

So overall there are good news for the Abrams, but are they good enough?

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Bigger guns are not always better

When it comes to armored fighting vehicles, there is always a tradeoff between vehicle size, weight, ammunition, gun calibre and armor protection.
This is really important when it comes to medium calibre guns and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs): armor penetration, lethality against infantry, rate of fire, ammunition load and the availability of a large amount of ammunition at the gun are indispensable factors for a well performing IFV.

Balancing all these factors is critical, but hard to achieve. Different countries have come to different solutions in accordance with their doctrines. Increasing the gun calibre will lead to a higher lethality against infantrymen and most likely increase armor penetration (although the actual pressure, penetrator design and barrel length matter here too). However the rate of fire and the ammunition stowage will most likely be reduced. Using an anti-tank missile launcher will increase costs and weight of the vehicle, but allows the usage of an autocannon with lower penetration.
In the end choosing the main armament of an armored fighting vehicle (AFV) should be considered as an optimization problem: How can one make the AFV most lethal for a given weight and size (and cost)?

In order to take the different effectivness of the different calibres into account, the amount of "stowed kills" is measured or estimated. The idea behind this is rather simple: one compares the lethality (using different metrics like armor penetration, after armor effects or the amount and spread of fragments) to the amount of ammunition stored inside the vehicle and at the gun.

The Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90) is a great example for the positive and negative impacts of larger calibre ammunition, due to the larger amount of different guns adopted on it.
The CV9040 uses the 40 milimetre Bofors L70 gun, the CV9035 the 35 milimetre Bushmaster III autocannon, the CV9030 the 30 mm Bushmaster II autocanon, the CV90105 prototype light tank a M68E tank gun and the CV90120 with a 120 mm Compact Tank Gun from RUAG.
Dutch CV9035
In case of the CV90 the ammunition available at the gun varies:
  • The CV9040 has a total of  24 rounds available at the gun (three rows of eight rounds) with a further 24 rounds being located in a carousel magazine used as ready racks.
  • The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
  • The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
This clearly shows the benefit of utilizing smaller calibres in combat vehicles. While the CV9040 has only 24 rounds directly available at the gun, just by using the slightly less powerful 35 x 228 milimetres calibre the amount of rounds available at the gun is nearly tripled. The 30 x 173 mm calibre still more than doubles the ready ammunition compared to the 35 mm calibre! Given that the 40 mm Bofors gun currently does not offer more armor penetration possibilities, the Bofors compares unfavourably to the Bushmaster guns. While the actual armor penetration of the 40 mm Bofors with APFSDS ammunition is higher, the added armor penetration does not allow engaging heavier armored targets: all three claibres can defeat current generation IFVs frontally and MBTs from the side - the only advantage gained by the larger calibres is additional ranges, which only matters under limited circumstances.  
In a similar manner the total ammunition load is affected by the calibre of the main gun:
  • Including the 48 rounds stored in the turret, a CV9040B has a total combat load of 234 rounds of 40 mm Bofors ammunition.
  • A CV9035 has storage options for a total of 203 rounds of 35 mm ammunition. The lower number compared to the version armed with the Bofors gun is the result of the less optimal ammunition storage and the belted ammunition.
  • The most ammunition is stored in a CV9030: up to 400 rounds of ammunition, nearly twice as much as on the other versions, can be stored inside the vehicle.
  • The CV90105 TML carries 40 rounds of 105mm ammunition inside the vehicle.
  • The CV90120-T carries 45 rounds of 120mm ammunition.
The CV90105 TML and the CV90120-T however require a larger crew of 4 soldiers and have lost all infantry carrying capactity, so the ammunition load for an IFV version with 105/120mm gun would have been drastically lowered.

While the total ammunition stowage of a CV9040 is actually higher than that of a CV9035, this is related to the different gun design: a dual-belt fed externally powered gun loaded with belts of 35 rounds is larger but also a lot more capable than a 40 mm Bofors L/70 gun.
Above is a graphic from CTA International showing the advantages of their "space efficient" 40 mm Cased Telescopic Armament Systems (CTAS) gun. This graphic illustrates nicely how the gun size is affected by larger calibre ammunition, albeit it is a bit "unfair" and biased. The 40 mm CTAS is not fitted with any sort of gun mantlet protection, whereas the Bushmaster III gun at least is fitted with one. The Bushmaster guns are all externally powered guns and are including parts of the ammunition feed mechanism, whereas the 40 mm CT(AS) gun's external powered motor and feed mechanism are not shown completely. The CTAS gun is at least quite larger and heavier than the 30 mm RARDEN and 30 mm Mauser MK30 guns, which are/were used in the original versions of the Warrior and ASCOD vehicles to be equipped with the CTAS gun in British service.  
In general larger calibre ammunition has the following negative impacts on vehicles, which need to be taken into account by the vehicle designers and manufacturers:
  • weight
  • size
  • gun overhang
  • internal space
  • costs


Different medium calibres used by IFVs

For further reference here is a small listing of AFVs and stored ammunition:
  • Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 - 2000 x 20 mm rounds
  • Marder 1A3 - 1250 x 20 mm rounds (503 rounds ready to use), 4 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
  • Marder 2 prototype - 287 x 35 mm rounds (177 available at gun)
  • Bradley - 900 x 25 mm rounds (300 available at gun), 7 TOW ATGMs (2 ready to use)
  • Warrior - 300 x 30 mm rounds (2 clips of 3 rounds at the gun)
  • Puma - 400 x 30 mm rounds (200 available at the gun), unkown number of missiles (2 ready to use)
  • BMP-1 - 40 x 73 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
  • BMP-2 - 300 x 30 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
  • BMP-3 - 500 x 30 mm rounds, 40 x 100 mm rounds/missiles
  • AMX-10P - 760 x 20 mm rounds (325 ready at gun), 10 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
The Canadian Army and the US Army both did reject upgunning their LAV IIIs and Bradley IFVs respectively to a higher calibre, because of the lowered amount of "stored kills". The Canadian military also pointed out that a larger gun due to the limited amount of ammunition has to be used differently - the 25 mm Bushmaster gun of the LAV III was "used like a machine gun" by firing short salvos. This is not really possible with larger calibres due to the increased size and therefore reduced combat load.


Figures from the US Army Research Laboratoy on investigating the adoption of a 35 mm gun on the Bradley come to the results pictured above: While a standard 35 mm point-detonating high explosive (HE) round has a higher lethality per round than a 25 mm HE round, the actually amount of stowed kills is considered to be worse at short to medium combat ranges, where the smaller fragmenting effect of the 25 mm HE round doesn't matter as much, because the accuracy is still very respectable. Only at longer ranges - i.e. above 1500 metres/one mile - the 35 mm point-detonating HE ammunition is favourable. Depending on terrain and combat scenario this can be satisifactory or not - during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation.

There seem however to be two major factors speaking for the adoption of autocannons of larger calibres on infantry fighting vehicles:
  1. programmable ammunition
  2. armor penetration
As the figures from the test and simulations made by the US Army Research Laboraty show, programmable ammunition can greatly increase the lethaliy against infantry. Programmable ammunition also can provide considerable better results when used against aircrafts, main battle tanks (by damaging all optics) and infantry hidden in structures (by exploding within the building).
As the current electronics and fuzes required for programmable ammunition cannot be fitted into small calibres such as 20 mm and 25 mm ammunition without reducing the payload beyond to an unreasonable small amount, calibres of 30 mm and above have gained popularity.

As far as armor penetration is considered, this is always a trade-off depending on the user's doctrine: it mostly comes down to a simple design decision: For what targets will the main gun of the vehicle be utilized and against which targets are other (and better) weapon systems available?

The CV9040 was designed with rather specific requirements, which are not shared by many other countries. The 40 mm Bofors gun was chosen for a number of reasons:the same calibre was already in use with the Swedish Navy and was used for anti-aircraft weapon systems (including the CV9040AAV self-propelled anti-air gun later developed, based on the CV90 chassis). A major factor however was the demand to penetrate the side armor of (ex-)Soviet main battle tanks such as the T-55 and T-72: these tanks have 80-90 mm thick steel armor over the sides of turret and hull, penetrating this with a 20-30 mm gun at medium ranges and certain angles of impact is not possible. The Swedish requirements however saw no adoption of an anti-tank missile system on the CV90; the main gun was intended as sole weapon to engage enemy armor and thus the demand for armor penetration was high.
Other infantry fighting vehicles like the M2 Bradley, AMX-10 and Marder are designed with less emphasis on main gun penetration, as the autocannons were only intended to defeat infantry units, APCs and IFVs. For heavier armored targets these vehicles were equipped with anti-tank missile launchers that offer greatly improved penetration even over a 40 mm gun and can be effectively used against a wider variety of targets (thanks to the availability of multi-purpose warheads for modern ATGMs).

In a presentation on the 40 mm CTAS gun, the manufacuters implies with a graphic, that three rounds of the new 40 mm case telescopic ammunition have the same lethality as 21 rounds of 20 mm or 30 mm ammunition. Unfortunately the resolution of the image is poor and it seems to be the result of photoshop work. However the total combat load of vehicles fitted with the CTAS gun is really poor, which means despite being optimized for being "small", the stowed kills of a Warrior or Scout-SV with CTAS are still limited compared to other IFVs with smaller guns and missile launchers. This shows that bigger guns are not always better.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

UK's defence modernization advances

Apparently the British army modernization programme is running quite well - after already ordering the required MTU engines (which will be licence-made by Rolls Royce), two further milestone have been made.

The UK has ordered a total of 515 40 mm autocanons for use with telescopic case ammunition from CTA International. 245 of these will be used for the Warrior CSP upgrade, while 245 will be used for the Scout SV. 25 guns are used for trials and testing. The costs are a £150 million ($236 million),
delivery of the CTAS cannons is to start in 2015 and last seven years.

Furthermore a study is reviewing the possibility to produce the Scout SV chassis and turret in the UK, after an initial batch of 100 vehicles would have been manufactured in Spain.


Author's opinion: The British army modernization as part of the former FRES programme is getting along well. That is good news for the British army and for the NATO.
Still I have a few troubles with the British implementation of a vehicle armed with the 40 mm Case Telescoped Armament System, it seems one of the problems of the British military to always favor "exotic" calibres nobody else uses.
The MICV-80 Warrior already used the horrendous RARDEN gun, which not only suffered from being cumbersome to use (and being manually loaden), but it also used the rare 30x170 mm catridge, while the rest of the world settled for the 30x173 mm catrige (most NATO members) or the 30x165 mm catridge (Eastern block).
The CTA gun might have a similar fate as the RARDEN gun, as the development partner France still utilizes the 25 mm autocannon on their wheeled VBCI infantry fighting vehicle.

The low ammunition load of the Warrior WSCP is also not a decision I would agree with.

The Scout SV (pictured) is based on the ASCOD 2 from GDELS
The attempt to locally produce a part of the Scout SV in the UK is, frankly, a stupid idea. It's just going to increase the cost and delay the production.

Here are the original reports from Jane's IHS:

Sources: Jane's on CTAS 40 mm cannon , Jane's on possible local production of Scout SV