40mm cased telescoped cannon

It’s always good to work on a capacity of a section+ instead of strictly just 7 men. Thats the key difference between an IFV and an APC, that gun isn’t there just because, its how the vehicle/section are intended to fight. The 76mm is for anti-ship work and a bit of NGFS while the 40mm is for small boats, selective disabling and warning shots. My focus is on the use of 40mm CTA for use on the AAV upgrade/ACV. Another + point for the autocannon is that the old alternative, the 0.5 cal, does not cause breeches in structures. 4. BV Buster, Effective range is claimed to be 4,000m and up to 6 vehicles can be integrated with a single control module for wide area coverage, including fire control for Starstreak/HVM missiles. To be clear, the source of the “IFV problem” myth in this thread is solely from someone with an obvious agenda of weakening European defence capability. We know this as that is what has been happening for the last 40 years. ”, And Col. Kmiecik’s justification for choosing the heaviest weight: http://defensetech.org/2013/02/21/army-gcv-needs-to-be-big-and-tracked/. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the APC/IFV question. However, the selection of the unfielded new design for major programmes has been controversial. There is nothing to stop you putting the same remote mount on top of a turret though. In light of all this, I have to support the IFV side of the equation. News emerged in 2014 that confirmed a decision by Lockheed Martin to abandon the Warrior turret conversion and proceed with a new turret design, this was no doubt cold comfort to BAE, who had insisted from the start that a new turret would be needed. Thank you mr. fred You go from a 20 tonne vehicle capable of carrying a section in comfort to a 30 tonne vehicle with a reduced section. without seeing the detail like the area swept by the gun inside the turret and where the feed is coming from. UK Orders 40mm Cased Telescoped AFV Gun. I’m cheerfully on mr.fred’s wavelength here. I started to wonder what does not make sense in the above; had I perhaps written platoon in place of squad, or…? A good suppression weapon it is but falls short when compared to he M2, 40mm AGL or even a light weight 20mm. That is true,…But Hohum is actually right in that a CV90 mk III does have room for 8 dismounts. The Armoured Scout and Reconnaissance Vehicle was specified in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and the UK in July 1998, the original Operational Requirements Document having being agreed in December 1997. The new cannon fires 40mm Cased Telescoped ammunition, manufactured for the British Army by BAE Systems’ munitions factories in Washington, Tyne and Wear and Glascoed in Wales. S.O is completely wrong when he states thats the case. As can be seen from the images below, the payload is fully contained within the case, this is what is meant by ‘case telescoped’, the main reason to do this is space efficiency. Does anyone think that will change much in ten year’s time? In the 80s, there was a study to determine the effectiveness of the M-113 vs the Bradley by the US NTC. Mr.Fred: Sometimes a tank may not be available for low level ops (single trench/bunker) to support the IFV plt, so potentially it would go in alone. Janes thinks a small number went to special forces, but the German gov went for the more conventional 5.56 G36. Some 35mm systems come close but their size and weight is greater than the CTS as is their ammo. Refinements in materials technology and ammunition design have opened the way for new ammunition construction techniques utilising lightweight and inexpensive polymers in place If you want a nice garden, hire a gardener. I won’t call it a missile defence gun. Interesting that South Korea adopted 40mm as well for K21 despite having the option to use other autocannons. Silly? I agree with you about the trade offs, at which point does the ballistic protection gained from having no turret and more armor over come the ability to fire a medium caliber gun. It’s wasteful to spend much time and funds on that little technical progress. I guess the same could be said for the 127mm on challenger. I always thought 7+2 was a nice number to have. In the end, I suppose most here understand I’m a German who prefers to write about disagreements with conventional wisdom or majority opinion and stay silent about agreements, resulting in the appearance of very unorthodox and unusual opinions. The US Army doesn’t really have a tracks versus wheels debate, it has a bunch of in-service platforms it wants to make much better, the one it wants to (and has been doing) the most to is the wheeled platform to which it now intends to add a medium calibre gun thus going in the opposite direction to the rather ill-conceived idea being proposed by some here. The CT40 cased telescoped armament system is a 40mm cannon built by a Nexter-BAE Systems consortium, CTA International. Oh yes, those were the days. 1. just picked: yes You are looking at it the wrong way round. I am intrigued by the last line in the article to which Tony Williams linked. An independent EO/IR sensor can also be used with detection ranges in excess of 18km. Cased telescoped ammunition concept ・ｧThe projectile is telescoped inside the cartridge case and surrounded by propellant. You sure the Illuminati isn’t monitoring your internet traffic? Calibres really depend on what you want to do. "Cased Telescoped Ammunition and Gun Technology. > Effectiveness: > Against armoured vehicles (with armour piercing fin stabilized ammunition), > Against infantry or facilities (with general purpose explosive ammunition). BAE announced their investment a £4.5 million in a Turret Test Rig for both Warrior and FRES programmes in February 2010. Some parallel US efforts You don’t get this. This format provides significant ergonomic benefits within vehicles in the space envelope required for the gun and the ammunition storage. Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future. For additional fore support I do advocate having integral Fire Support platforms within a Battalion, making up to 4 DFS platforms available to each Infantry company. It will also equip a number of French Army vehicles, the system as a whole being the result of a joint development programme and joint BAE/NEXTER venture called CTA International. It will be mounted in a new, stabilized turret, capable of firing accurately on the move, and linked to advanced sensors, modernized targeting systems, and a built-in d… When the first tank came up along the road it got ambushed with a 106mm shot to the flank at 25m before it could reorientate itself along the road. A thread on the army's new CT40 cannon which will arm Ajax … Umpires called it a kill and the whole tank column got jammed, which that guys then used to run off and flank the column again for a shot into the rear of the last tank. France has also selected the CTAS 40 for use on their EBRC (Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance et de Combat) vehicles that will replace the AMX-10RC and Sagaie vehicles, using a common 2 man turret, the T40. People are still buying IFVs because a section with an organic stabilised medium calibre gun supported by thermal sights and a modern fire control system is an incredibly potent fighting unit. When it devolves to name calling and ad hominiem attacks, it is obvious that the argument is going nowhere. The selection of Lockheed Martin as the turret supplier was greeted with surprise by many in industry as they had very little or no experience with the CTA system and the decision ignored both BAE and Nexter designs that were relatively mature. Sometimes the number of dismounts claimed will be increased by having one of the turret crew dismount, which then reduces the effectiveness of the turret mounted weapons. The 40mm Cannon. Meanwhile, (H)APCs can keep the mounted infantry out of the lines of fire most of the time. A troop carrier with a remote MG/AGL , with a decent set of dismounts (12?) Obs – I think this statement “they actually ignored the M-113” one of the best justifications for not putting punchy weapons on personnel carriers…. The RAPIDFire vehicle can be integrated with a number of air defence systems and uses the specialised air defence ammunition that contained 200 tungsten pellets. !…it takes up almost excactly the middle 1/3 of the turret. France and the UK agreed on a common certification process for the 40mm CTWS in March 2006. The basic problem being the CoG is too high, I am sure most of us have seen sufficient turned-over turreted wheeled vehicles to know that. Of course a medium calibre weapon can do more than a HMG/GMG combo but one area that I don’t think gets enough attention is depression angles of the weapons, turreted weapons can’t depress as much as a remote mount (in general) so are less use for suppression in some cases. The issue is ammo manufacturing techniques to reduce unit cost and maximising the output of each production line (2 day weeks are not cost effective). Having seen the 40mm CTS ammunition up close along with 40mm Bofors there is a huge difference in the size of the rounds. Towards the end of 2013, news emerged of problems with the Scout turret. I read every word you write which is why I know its often nonsense, your latest post including more of the same: Tracked versus wheeled debate, nope, thats why GD built a tracked Stryker as its AMPV candidate Lots of occasions where you’ll actually end up with “attached personnel”. Good job thats not what happens then isn’t it. The idea of using a 40mm GMG to replace a cannon sounds jolly good on paper but a no-go for practicality reasons, try hitting a moving target a 2000m with one, yes agreed, in a built up area its fine because of weapon ranges but I would still rather have a cannon. – but even Israel had to come up with the HAPC – with its ability to wade through fire in urban combat and carry enough MG rounds to maintain suppressive fire – not to leave their tanks as sitting ducks in those special circumstances (which in their geography are not so infrequent). I’ve never been particularly convinced that the cased telescoped rounds are particularly space efficient – telescoped conventional rounds do much the same job while being narrower and cheaper. @Pacman27 The APC is clearly different from the IFV (and can deliver a whole squad in one go). The CTWS 40 was still in development under separate contracts, so it was not impacted by the cancellation of TRACER and would likely form part of the FRES programme. Or are you just making up a fantasy orbat from your imagination? @SO I can accept given a heavy enough, large enough vehicle, an IFV makes some sense. Or to be in a battleline. Two years later, in 1999, further interest from the USA resulted in a representative turret containing the 40mm CTAS integrated onto a US Army Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. a RWS with 50cal or 20mm to deal with soft targets plus Javelin or even APKWS / CRV7-PG / LMM hanging off the sides to deal with buildings / hard targets. Sounds ridiculous? Not many of the teams have their own personal artillery battery on call. Or you can pay the local odd-job man to have a go instead. Alliant Techsystems and Giat International signed a cooperation agreement in late 1992 to promote the 45mm weapon system but this did not progress and the Giat/RO relationship further developed. I would give priority to the number of dismounts carried over firepower, with 8 the optimum number. There are two general purpose rounds, one point detonating (General Purpose Round – Point Detonating – Tracer (GPR-PD-T)) and the other providing an airburst capability (General Purpose Round – Point Detonating – Tracer (GPR-ab-T)) which can be used against troops on a reverse slope or behind light cover for example, it can also be used in point detonating mode. I reiterate I am in favour of dedicated vehicles and a reconn mount needs a little f**k o** potential to enemy skirmishers be they air,foot,track or wheeled. To get the firepower & protection required, then even in a deployable vehicle, I would guess you are looking at 15 to 25 tons. You offer a contentious and challenging view point to this site. For reference even the unprogrammable version of the Rheinmetall 120 mm DM11 round…called HE SQ RH31 (or HE-FRAG-T) costs more than $3000 a pop. The Bushmaster is more accurate with a lot less scatter at its usual engagement range meaning more shots on target especially as it is a remote control mount. Numbers matter and the reducing numbers of dismounts means you reduce the number of Infantry you can deliver to an objective. Besides, KETF is basically just a modified version of the naval AHEAD round and using the same smart fuse , so you also have all the 35 millenium CIWS installed , to help bring down the cost. Nobody expects a heavy manoeuvre formation to go storming a major town so its not even an issue, thats why Army’s have multiple formation types. We use that system too. So if the new norm is 7 not 8, fair enough, but it is a reduction. That might have been the Dutch reasoning behind choosing 35 over 30mm, but in our case it was first and foremost the capability of the KETF round. Suggesting that such an arrangement should be ended when it has been proven to be both technically possible and operationally effective is just stupid. The TRACER and FSCS programmes were subsequently harmonised and a joint project created. I can see a role for medium-weight IFVs in the current western style, but more as light cavalry, or dragoons, to take terms from the musket-era nomenclature. This may actually work decently on open Eastern European areas if blue air forces have air supremacy, but it’s no recipe for use even only close to settlements with a depth of 7 or more buildings or woodland. With increasing personnel costs it might be worth looking at the ratio of fighting v support personnel (drivers, gunners etc). @Observer I specifically said “APC” as you have repeatedly asserted that full section can be delivered by an IFV. Examples include ammunition for both hand weapons and artillery. The CT40 is about 850cc’s and 40 mm Bofors a little more than 900 cc’s. The vehicle is part of the section, it fights with it as a coherent part of it, hence why someone stays in the vehicle. This comes at a cost however, the CTAS is expensive (regardless of arguments about cost per stored kill) and unless others purchase it, only in service in relatively small numbers. The main difference in … Much as it may pain me to admit it, S O does have a point. It could have had 8 Panzergrenadiere plus Eurospike (launcher and munitions) if it had been developed as a HAPC with bolt-on RCWS. Back to those ratios of vehicles to dismounted personnel to support personnel, AND, the core task of an armoured infantry unit. There is no “IFV problem”, the concept has been succfully executed multiple times over the last 40 years. The usual cost is seating space for 2-3 men. In the sandbox we found adobe (mudbrick) and rammed earth buildings very resistant to small arms and HMG fire and even 20mm having little or no effect. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed16537_LeFante.pdf. Quite simply, it is one of space, although additional armour piercing performance is always a good thing. the BAESystems brochure for CV90 claims 3 crew plus 7 dismounts. * there was a shoot-out, not against each other, but with identical target scenarios dreamt up (as for size, distance, speed of closing in, manoeuvrability…) by the USN, @JJ, what makes that moribund project In order to maximise commonality, realise economies of scale and provide confidence and impetus to an export campaign. I can see advantages to either side so I would think it all depends on the skill and tactics of the people involved rather than what tool they are issued with. Compared to the cost of other ammunition like dumb 76mm (naval) or 120mm tank ammo thats downright cheap. fully costed (exc. Jeremy, whether the ammunition has the range to shoot down UAVs depends on what you’re trying to shoot down. A heavier, larger, more costly vehicle with a big gun will of course be better than a smaller, lighter one without a big gun, but you have to consider the cost of both; in terms of acquisition, training, maintenance, obsolescence management, logistics, combat support and potentially more. Warrior SOP was to debuss at more like 100m or closer, relying on increased armour and firepower to get the infantry onto the position. Defense News reported that General Dynamics had agreed to pay Lockheed Martin several million pounds in compensation for failing to keep to a timetable on requirement delivery. And yet they have only managed to fit 42 rounds to the manned turret(warrior? No problem with factual comments on the subject, but leave the vendettas and personal attacks out of it? Ignoring the obvious propaganda aspects (and embarrassment at the whole production), it does give a rather interesting look at how the 76mm works. :). A similar reason to the Dutch adopting 35mm when they saw 30mm might not be able to defeat BMP3+ over the service life of the CV90 buy. What is especially amusing about this discussion is that the US Army Stryker brigade as originally conceived was exactly what some are proposing here- they are now busy trying to turn the Stryker APC variant into an IFV having realised the formations lack lethality. If I read things right here, some people are basically saying that in an Armoured / Mechanised Infantry Battalion the primary weapon system is the transport platform and Infantry are the supporting element. US GCV, the programme that was to fix Bradley’s shortcomings, was aiming at a 93t IFV slightly bigger than Abrams. Lockheed Martin proposed an upgrade of the existing Warrior turret and BAE, their MTIP 2 design. Nexter was in competition with Panhard with their Sphinx vehicle, fitted with yet another turret for the CT40 that has drawn on expertise from Lockheed Martin UK and Cockerill. Where’s the la-la dreamland that keeps coming into this discussion? The whole point of a gunship is to hit targets cheaply. I understand that Oto Melara have options for this already – so why are we going with 40mm please? Competing bidders included General Dynamics with a version of their Mk46 turret, as fitted to the proposed USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and now used in naval applications, Selex offered a Mk 44 Bushmaster in the Oto Melara HITFIST turret, Lockheed Martin/Rheinmetall, a modification of the existing Warrior turret with Bushmaster 30mm, and CTAI/BAE, the 40mm CTAS in MTIP-2. Just as a slight aside, how many people are usually expected to be in a section other than the two fire-teams of four? The 40mm Cannon The cased telescoped (CT) 40mm cannon will be used in the new Ajax Reconnaissance tank and an upgraded British Army Warrior AFV. 8×8 is a compromise, nothing but, strategic mobility over tactical ability, good to have if you have the armor to back it up. Not forgetting that greater ammo load increases operational flexibility and capability by reducing the logistic support frequency. They were related to required infantry support in light of firepower coming from the vehicle itself. Most rounds don’t home in on target and you are working on an estimate of where the person will be in the minute it takes for the round to travel to your location. Or are we just pouring UK taxpayers cash into France? The dichotomy does exist; solutions vary The point of these larger caliber replacement weapons is that older autocannon are optomised for high velocity armour piercing ammunition. In late March 2010, the MoD Investment Approvals Board recommended a year-long delay to WCSP. RARDEN as a gun was/is a very effective anti-IFV gun, the problem was actually with everything around it- notably the lack of stabilisation or continual (or electrical for that matter) feed system. Not sure what happened to the german project,I believe it was supposed to arm the Tiger helicopter and there was talk The UK may now or soon bring these telescoped 40 mm rounds into service, but the odds of this becoming a commercial (export) success are slim unless some behind the scenes deal allows this to become a NATO standard. It’s also enough against all those merely bulletproofed vehicles and most BMPs’ flanks. In summer 2013 a number of Warrior announcements were made; The Specialist Vehicle Cannon Project Team, part of the UK Ministry of Defence, intends to place a further buy of ammunition, with CTA International through an Amendment to Contract No FRES/0075, to support the demonstration phases of the Cased Telescopic Cannon which will be provided to Prime Contractors for integration into the Scout Specialist Vehicle (SV) and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), Value: 25 629 034 EUR Including VAT. There are a couple of variation but the UK version will have a dual feed system, most likely loaded with the APFDS and GPR, although other mixes may be used depending upon requirements. Or a good night with an obliging wench. In 30 and 35mm you have ABM/PABM/KETF ammunition that is also programmable against a multitude of targets. Having significant firepower under platoon control and under armour is a hard thing to give up. Furthermore, I don’t think you get to choose what constitutes a “True IFV”, especially when said example directly confirms the point that you are arguing against. There will be 245 for the Scout and 245 for Warrior, the balance being used for training, trials and ammunition qualification. …I have seen you make this claim before, but it must have been a couple of years ago by now….so that means you would have been what?..like 13 years old when”working” with the Danish CV90’s . * Yes, I am aware of the irony implicit in the statement. vehicle, armament, numbers? One advantage it has is the increased payload for specialised rounds over similar sized 30mm weapon systems. One aimed at carrying dismounts & armed with a HMG/light cannon such as the FN 15.5mm BRG & then a fire support version with at least a HV 60mm & perhaps a 105mm? The CT40 40mm cannon has been mandated for the UK Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) SV and Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) programmes. I am firmly in the APC camp. IFVs on a common equipment set with MBTs, all somewhere around 50t and able to go up to 60 and down to 40, depending on the threat, would seem to be a good way to replace Warrior and Challenger at the appropriate juncture. The 35-40 mm calibres are seemingly meant for a “IFV vs. IFV” fight. Why would the CV90 need to carry 8 (although the manufacturer says 7) when smaller numbers are appropriate? Qualification firings included the APFSDS-T and practice rounds. The cased telescoped (CT) 40mm cannon will be used in the new Ajax Reconnaissance tank and an upgraded British Army Warrior AFV. The Warrior tracked vehicle family is a series … This a great achievement for the program,the challenges in getting to this point should not be underestimated and today [Friday] is the result of a lot of hard work. 5. capable of operating as a single squad rather than having to pick up extra men from other carriers to fill them out. The IFV does not just carry infantry it fights with them. It seems a tempting option rather than developing proper gun tanks in the same weight class to support the troop carriers properly. > Maximum range 3 km. IFVs work better at medium or heavy weights. Just ignore the subluminal messge in the background that says “join….us….you… want…to…join…usss….” :)”, I imagine it would be very hard to ignore such a message, and can only assume that such toilet related recruiting tactics would be aimed at old fashioned sailors the likes of which are no longer with us. maxxrocinante on July 26, 2020 at 3:19 pm … Yes you would think so , and i was surprised as well but apparently the 35mm KETF/ABM isnt actually that expensive ….about $500 a piece last i checked(admittedly a few years ago). Regardless of whether anyone thinks the CTAS is a good idea or not is irrelevant, to coin a phrase, we are where we are. On March 21, 2018, BAE Systems demonstrated CTAI’s 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannon to Army officials at Fort Benning, Georgia, which is presently home to … I can think of any number of reasons – not all are flattering. … whose still buying APCs? ); it is the sights and the integration of everything. Intended to equip the Ajax reconnaissance and Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, the Cased Telescoped Armament System (CTAS) comprises the CT Cannon, Ammunition Handling System, Controller, Gun Control Equipment, Gun Mount and a range of ammunition natures. The new cannon fires 40mm Cased Telescoped ammunition, manufactured for the British Army by BAE Systems’ munitions factories in Washington, Tyne and Wear and Glascoed in Wales. There are no reduced sections, IFVs are designed to carry full sections (even the Bradley was designed to carry a full section they just changed the section size post design freeze). Our CT weapons and ammunition systems are offered in a 5.56 mm CT light machine gun (LMG), a 7.62 mm CT medium machine gun (MMG) and a 6.5 mm CT carbine.

Josephine County Property For Sale, Bard's Tale Walkthrough, Online 3d Modeling, How To Summon A Snow Fox In Minecraft Command Bedrock, How Old Was Ken Caminiti When He Died, Ardor En Los Ojos Y Lagrimeo, Josh Okogie Injury, Ac Odyssey First Civilization Breastplate, Dreka Gates Brother,