Another AFV design question

It's all a good illustration of the difficuilties of AFV design isn't it? The constant balancing of often contradictory factors in an attempt to obtain the least worst compromise. More Armour/less speed. Different fuel/less fire risk/less power. etc. etc. etc.

True, but it's like many things. You've got to decide what you want it to do at the initial design stage. The CVR(T) was designed to be a fast quiet lightly armed recce vehicle. If it was hit it wasn't really all that armoured, but the idea of it being small fast and quiet compensated for that.

Mid-life re-fit, and it turned into a slow noisy lightly armed recce vehicle which was just as dead if hit. No advantage. They just lost track of what they wanted it to do. :mellow:

 

True, but it's like many things. You've got to decide what you want it to do at the initial design stage. The CVR(T) was designed to be a fast quiet lightly armed recce vehicle. If it was hit it wasn't really all that armoured, but the idea of it being small fast and quiet compensated for that.

Mid-life re-fit, and it turned into a slow noisy lightly armed recce vehicle which was just as dead if hit. No advantage. They just lost track of what they wanted it to do. :mellow:

I guess there is some argument that if any AFV takes a hit from a guided missle or another AFV its prob a gonor anyhow regardless of how much armour you have, so you may as well dispense with it and have all the advantages of less weight???? Or is the crusier tank???

 

or this :

 

The tank seems to me one of those weapons where there is so much technology designed to counter it that the only reason for having them is that the enemy has them too.

Adrian

 

Profound and true! Doesn't it apply to all weapons though?

Yes im sure it does, But the funny thing about tanks is that once armour got so thick that the anti tank gun became to big to be manhandled and you get into the situation the best weopen to destroy a tank is another tank. Ok you can have your anti tank gun mounted on a motorised chassis but then its a tnak be another name. bit of a strange situation.

 

Yes im sure it does, But the funny thing about tanks is that once armour got so thick that the anti tank gun became to big to be manhandled and you get into the situation the best weopen to destroy a tank is another tank. Ok you can have your anti tank gun mounted on a motorised chassis but then its a tnak be another name. bit of a strange situation.

There will always be an ebb and flow between weapon systems and defences. Nobody is going to put all their faith in a weapon system that can be easily defeated in the same way that a weapon system that can't defeat the enemy is useless and won't be kept.

Weapon types will come and go as 'fashion' and doctorin changes. Tanks were in, then out, are in again and with FRES, will be out again. When we get a snotty nose from not having any heavy armour, it will be back 'in' again.

From the time of the thrown rock, to spears and arrows. It is the way it was, is and forever will be.

 

I had to look up FRES..
Is this it?
http://www.atkinsglobal.com/markets/aviationanddefence/defencesystems/fres/

Yes, the Future Rapid Effect System is a future series of airportable armour to improve the mobility and deployment speed of the British Forces.

 

Basically if you put the sprockets in front you lengthen and complicate the power train, but you have the transmission and steering controls close to the driver; and if you put 'em at the back you have a compact power train but a long control path, needing more vulnerable and less reliable hydraulic, electrical and/or mechanical controls.

If you put the engine in front of the driver you've then got to make special arrangements for him to see past it. If you put it behind him and in front of the fighting compartment you cut him off from the rest of the crew and have to make special arrangements for him to get in and out in a hurry.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Regards,
MikB

 

Yes, the Future Rapid Effect System is a future series of airportable armour to improve the mobility and deployment speed of the British Forces
.

Hmm.. this is a lightweight system that looks like it fits with the governments assumption that we will only be fighting terrorists in the future, not anyone with a major arms industry. Future enemies won't have tanks, only suicide bombers. The same reason they are retiring the Sea Harrier but keeping the GR9 - we may need to bomb terrorist training camps but not the defend our ships against strike aircraft. We're supposed to rely on the Americans for that....so that's alright then....

The Iranians and North Koreans have tanks and strike aircraft.....

Adrian

 

.

Hmm.. this is a lightweight system that looks like it fits with the governments assumption that we will only be fighting terrorists in the future, not anyone with a major arms industry. Future enemies won't have tanks, only suicide bombers. The same reason they are retiring the Sea Harrier but keeping the GR9 - we may need to bomb terrorist training camps but not the defend our ships against strike aircraft. We're supposed to rely on the Americans for that....so that's alright then....

The Iranians and North Koreans have tanks and strike aircraft.....

Adrian

That is also the fears of the men on the vehicle park. But if everything goes to plan, and why should it as it's never happened before, there should be a complete family of 'Medium' armour to cover all the required rolls from MBT, recce, artillery, IFV, AAA, AT to recovery, ambulance and command post.

The idea is that by using modern design and armour technology they will produce a vehicle that is much lighter than a modern armoured vehicle while improving the afforded protection. Lighter vehicles would also improve mobility and reduce fuel requirements. Combining this with the reduction in spares requirement, with many spares being interchangable with other vehicles in the FRES family being a mix of wheeled and tracked vehicles, the army would reduce the logistic load and make the army 'greener' (Which is an odd concept!). There is also a possibility that at leas some of the family would be electrically driven!

All very nice, but it is of course the same old story of promising the world until the first vehicles are actually made. Promising a mix of tracked and wheeled as well as different power plants hardly shows a commitment to common, interchangable parts. Making FRES a 'jack of all trades and master of none' is a real possibility even if it actually meets all the expectations placed on it. In fact it is supposed to be in service from 2012 and have a life into the 2040s, but I'm not too sure I'll be around to see if that's the case.

Did anything enter service in 1912 that was still front line in 1940? :mellow:

 

QUOTE Did anything enter service in 1912 that was still front line in 1940?

Being used was SMLE Mark III in both these dates.
Also Vickers MG. 1912 -1968

I knew there must have been some things, as I didnb't even put much thought to it before I posted.... too early on a Saturday morning. But do you think that their 'Planned life' for your examples was so long? They were found to be good effective weapons once they were introduced and ramained until something better was found. Today if your computer is over 6 years old it works okay for most things, but it is classed as ancient. As soon as you find it can't run what you want any more and you've got the cash, you upgrade. You can't buy a computer and say this will last me 10 years.

Military technology moves a little slower, but even in the last 20 years we have had 2 completley new versions of the same Battle Tank, the one before that was in sevice just over 20 years.

They are planning a 30 year life for FRES. that's before we know how good or bad it's going to be or even what it'll look like. It doesn't really effect me first hand, but with the MoD's record on procurement, even after the introduction of 'smart' procurement, it does worry me :mellow:

 

It's not often I quote myself but in an earlier post on this thread, in relation to tank design, I did say:-

True, but it's like many things. You've got to decide what you want it to do at the initial design stage. The CVR(T) was designed to be a fast quiet lightly armed recce vehicle.

And that's the big worry with a project like FRES. They want it to do everything.

Also pointed out on this thread is the fact that tank design is in fact just the managment of compromises. Protection, Mobility & Weapons. If you want to build a tank you can make informed compromises for your design. But if that same design has to be many things other than a tank, those compromises become more and more 'fluffy' as a Command post doesn't need the same compromises as an IFV, or a recovery vehicle.

I hope it'll be a decent system and serve the lads and lasses who deserve the best so they can serve the British people. But it does look like it has the potential to be a real mess.:mellow:

 

Also pointed out on this thread is the fact that tank design is in fact just the managment of compromises. Protection, Mobility & Weapons. If you want to build a tank you can make informed compromises for your design. But if that same design has to be many things other than a tank, those compromises become more and more 'fluffy' as a Command post doesn't need the same compromises as an IFV, or a recovery vehicle.



IIRC CVR(T) was also part of a family that included IFV, missile launcher, command post and personnel carrier

 

IIRC CVR(T) was also part of a family that included IFV, missile launcher, command post and personnel carrier

True, but the common thread in the whole of the CVR(T) family was the fact that it was designed for nothing bigger than recce vehicles, although the chassis has since been stretched for some designs (Stormer and Shielder for example). All of the family are restricted in internal space except for the Sultan and the Samaritan, and they only have increased head room and are still very restricted to work in.