145 thoughts on “Eurosatory”

1. Joe88 June 11, 2012 at 10:21 am

   Hi, the “F90 Assault Rifle” link, is the same as the one above it: “6×6 Eagle”.

   Thanks btw, to all of you who make this website what it is (obviously especially TD and the article contributors), it’s a quality website, and long may it reduce the depressed mindframe one can get about defence as a Brit (being that we’ve f-ed ourselves).

   Cheers!
2. Think Defence Post authorJune 11, 2012 at 11:00 am

   Thanks Joe, links updated
3. Lord Jim June 11, 2012 at 4:01 pm

   BAE Systems, Global Combat Systems have announced that they are closing their last UK AFV production line in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in late 2013. This does throw a spanner in the works for the theory that we need to retain engineering skills in the UK as a strategis asset. Obviously they have decided their US and Swedish factories are sufficient, especially the former. Will this push the MoD into deciding that UK production is no longer to be a major driving force when deciding on what platforms are purchased to meet capability requirements? Whish other companies have production lines for AFVs in the UK?
4. Mr.fred June 11, 2012 at 5:54 pm

   Lord Jim,

   I would have said that it was the latter as much as the former. After all they bid SV out of Sweden.

   It begs the question – how difficult is it to set up a production line? Do we need the factory or the designers?
5. x June 11, 2012 at 6:11 pm

   The obvious thing to do is to get JCB to build them. Let say it takes 5 days to screw an APC together. 5 per week. Every 10 weeks that is battalion’s worth, round that up to 12 weeks so approximately 3 months. A brigade’s worth plus extra vehicles for say the RA, RE or whoever per year. We need about 5 to 6 brigades of them so 5 to 6 year programme.

   The trouble with these things is that too small and too costly, but they are wanted in sizeable numbers. But nowhere near as many as the average truck.
6. Chris.B. June 11, 2012 at 7:26 pm

   Some interesting stuff.

   The new Rheinmetall 120mm programmable HE sounds quite snazzy. Ultralife batteries look promising, mainly because of the large size reductions promised.

   I think my favourite though is that Jenoptik rangfinder. 1.5kg, invisible to low light night vision devices, intergral GPS and digital compass. Nice. Looks like the perfect little tool for “them” and James’s red trousered mates!
7. paul g June 11, 2012 at 8:44 pm

   @lord jim and mr fred, BAe were so confident about getting the SV contract (fingers,pies etc etc) they got a bit cocky about where it would be built (sweden). However, when they realised the cash cow had awoken from it’s sleep and all the whispers coming out of main building were it’s going to be GD and they’re building an assembly line in wales they said CV90 would be assembled in newcastle, and if they didn’t get the contract they would close newcastle. A shit trick to pull a week before the announcement not only on people of newcastle, using them as emotional blackmail, but also on MOD to put them in that position.

   Having said that! In my post on recycling vehicles it turns out BAe did the MLRS command variant and also the M109 resupply conversion, although these would not be big contracts (10 of each maybe) it could give the factory maybe another 18 months, 2 years. This could either help with a more structured redundancy or, as it takes it to 2015ish maybe something else could be squared away maybe a warrior NEMO conversion seeing as we kicked them off the mid life upgrade now they know MOD won’t just roll over anymore, time to play ball, nowt to lose if they’re going to close the factory, in fact if the MOD/govt is seen to be trying to keep the factory open it’s a win win
8. Tubby June 12, 2012 at 7:41 am

   The Thales RAPIDFire sounds interesting, while I am sure it’s aimed at France, the system would be useful for the UK and easy to re-supply as it uses the CT40 gun, so could share ammo with SV and Warrior.
9. Think Defence Post authorJune 12, 2012 at 10:53 am

   I think it is the proliferation of cheap UAV’s that is driving the resurgence of gun based air defence systems.

   Put them on RN ships as well and almost by accident you could have an effective system with huge commonality benefits.

   Wonder how effective they would be in the C-RAM role?

   Again, think about the commonality benefits

   Even more interesting, stick it on a C295 and you have a mini gunship

   All combined with LMM, hey, whats not to like?
10. Jed June 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    TD – thanks for all the updates matey !

    I agree that Thales RAPIDFire is a potential replacement for both Phalanx and DS30 mounts for RN, particularly if they complete development of that laser guided round based on the Starstreak guided ‘dart’ !
11. Jed June 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    James, where are you me old Cavalry mucka ?

    So what do you think sir, could this French CRAB beastie be the true replacement for your beloved Ferret ?

    http://defense-update.com/20120611_panhard-crab.html

    ?????
12. frenchie June 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    This would be interesting like vehicles of recce of your 16AAB.
13. James June 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Jed,

    looks interesting. I’m not a great fan of the remote weapon station idea, but I did start with a poor experience of the Spartan commander’s hatch: the amount of play on the MG was completely pants. Couldn’t hit a barn door from inside the barn, I’ll bet. I’m sure that with precision engineering these days it would work.

    I don’t believe that CRAB thing has adequate vision to the sides or rear, and it will suffer like all similar design vehicles from the crew not being able to hear the direction sound is coming from. That’s one reason I liked the Ferret design (itself a derivation of the Dingo of WW2) – you had your head out and could see all around. It was a bit sight-limited for Drives, and it had the steering rack of a Leyland bus (literally).

    Give me £500K and I could come up with a modular recce wagon that’s good for everything from air-dropping to counter-insurgency in cities to full out war. It would look like a Ferret when all dressed up, but with a WMIK ring around the turret with a 5m electrically powered mast on on side, and a 40mm AGL on the other. The turret panels would be proof against 12.7mm, but they’d be unboltable to strip off to leave just a roll cage. Decent quiet diesel engine that’s good for 60mph, with some XPM over the deck for lashing kit to. No more than 3 tonnes.
14. Think Defence Post authorJune 12, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Or we could just turn the Foxhound arse about face with the engine to teh rear and put a low profile armoured module on the front
15. ArmChairCivvy June 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Some older Panhards of the Portuguese cavalrymen, with lots of visibility, and this “innovation” would seem very much like a reincarnation of the one sitting next to it, just with a different calibre gun
    http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number5828.asp
16. Mr.fred June 12, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    James,

    That’s an interesting shopping list – do you really think that you can achieve it in less than 3 tonnes?
    An empty Land Rover WMIK weighs about two tonnes, a Jackal weighs 5.5t.
    The Ferret tipped the scales at 3.7t, unladen, the Humvee is 2.5t or thereabouts, unarmoured kerb weight.

    None of those are proof against a .50 cal, and the HMG threat is more usually the 14.5mm, which is substantially more powerful.

    There’s some good ideas there, but you won’t get them for £500k each and I doubt that you’ll get a good vehicle at 3t.

    And a 3t vehicle will get lobbed over the nearest tower block by a half-decent size IED, if it isn’t instantly shredded into chaff.
17. jed June 13, 2012 at 1:54 am

    James – thank you for the response sir

    TD – i am with you on the idea of a Foxhound / Ocelot derivative for commonalities sake!
18. James June 13, 2012 at 4:40 am

    Mr Fred,

    the £500K is for the design study, not the wagon itself…. This is the defence business, after all. Just be thankful I’m not charging BAE S prices!

    On the weight front, you are correct that it’s a challenge, but I believe that the answer comes down to an attitude to risk. How much protection do you need? The answer will drive the solution – anything from something like the Desert Patrol Vehicle from Chenowth, all the way to the very porky FRES SV based on ASCOD. The prices will go from £500K to about £5m. My own feelings are much more at the DPV / LSV end of the spectrum. After all, war is a risk business. I’d rather have a recce regiment of twice the size for half the price of a FRES SV Regiment. 100 DPV/LSV for £50M vs 50 FRES SV for £250M.

    (I’m not being flippant on the risk business. I spent the majority on my military career in CVR(T), in which there’s bugger all protection, and you sit on top of a 100 litres of petrol in a thin, unarmoured fuel tank. You just get on with it)
19. James June 13, 2012 at 6:52 am

    …DPV is out of the factory at 1,500 pounds weight. Add some polymer barge and under boards to aid fording, and some XPM side bins and you are still only at under 2,000 pounds. Needs a better electrical system to give 28v. Add in the electrical mast and sensor and still less than 2,500 pounds.

    Other wants: a lashing system for a rubber ring or floats to allow some swimming, power take off system like a tractor for a small little propeller, long electrical cable reel for dismounted sensor use, and for NATO to standardise on a pintle mount for anything from a MG, via optics, to a AT missile, and for that mounting system to be mountable on a roll bar.

    Small little BV also useful as a crew comfort.
20. Tubby June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Just read the futher information on RAPIDFire, and it actually looks aimed at the UK, as it is also incorparates Starstreak. Lets hope the 8 billion contigency fund that MoD has stretches to buy 4 or so batteries of RAPIDFire of the shelf.
21. Observer June 13, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Hmm Believe it IS possible James. The idea I had from a long time ago was something similar to an armoured car on tracks. We, countrywise, have a very large stock of armour personnel, due to yearly training and conscription, but I suspect not enough tanks. SOP is to wait for some crew to die off, repair the tank and get it back into service with a new crew (what can I say? War sucks, shit happens.) With stocks of a cheap, light tank, these “excess” crewmen can take part in action while waiting for a MBT to become available instead of sitting around counting screws.

    There was an old design from the failed C&C FPS that caught my eye that could be viable. It was similar to the “Pancake tank” that the hull is recessed between the tracks, 4 wheel drive with each spoke linked to a track pod, 2 man “hull” pod under a 40mm remote turret, rear engine. Just have to be HMG proof, anything above is overarmoured. I’ll try to find a pic.
22. Observer June 13, 2012 at 9:17 am

    http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=395236&rid=0#msg_395236

    With a smaller remote turret, crew in front instead of in the turret, front/back-driver/commander,gunner seating and centerline raised slightly above treads for all round vision (or at least 270, the turret blocks the back.
23. paul g June 13, 2012 at 10:12 am

    tapping in eurosatory 2012 into youtube brings up a host of videos
24. Mr.fred June 13, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Tubby
    What need is there for a RAPIDfire battery? Could it not be done with something cheaper and lighter? – A Seahawk of some kind on a trailer would achieve the same effect and that is already in service on ships.
    Also, I strongly doubt that it is off the shelf. First customer will have to pay for development and qualification.

    James,

    Then add HMG proof armour and the weight balloons. Add the power and chassis to support the weight and it goes up again. At less than 3t it may be an FV, but it will not be an AFV.
25. Gareth Jones June 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    one for James?

    http://www.gd-ots.com/flyer.html

    New versions of the Cobra AFV:
    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=2466

    Both based on HMMV I believe… is it time we adopted “the hummer” or at least variants of it?
26. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Mr. Fred,

    Something like RapidFire would be used to protect army forces from helicopters, UAV’s and loitering munitions etc.
27. Mr.fred June 13, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Something like RAPIDfire, perhaps, but that precise system?

    Would it not be sensible to go for a dual-role system fitted to front-line systems like IFVs?
28. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Given the low likely hood that we would actually be on the receiving end of enemy air power, I think it would be quite wasteful to fit every IFV with such a capability. Just a few AD assets here and there as needed should suffice.
29. Mr.fred June 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Given the low probability of air attack, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a capacity in our existing gear rather than buying completely separate systems with a limited covered area?

    Alternatively, with the projected proliferation of low-cost remote-controlled systems like UAVs and Loitering munitions, would it not make sense to ensure that there is a widely available capacity to deal with them. Rather than a supernumerary system with no other function, dishing out enhanced optics/radar to one in four IFVs would give a similar VSHORAD capability while software upgrades for the others would give at least some ability against a mass attack.
30. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    How much money would it cost to develop all those IFV’s into AA assets, with radar, special electro optical trackers, high elevation mounts etc? Compared to just buying a small number of RapidFire or some similar system, which then dedicates itself on Operations to watching the skies?
31. Mr.fred June 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Radar and EO trackers would cost the same whatever platform it is on.
    With modern generic platform architecture you can fit and upgrade systems as necessary.
    High elevation mounts should be part of the IFV stick anyway.

    These things are all cheap compared to buying a small number of unique systems with their own logistics and support demand and attempting to make sure that they are in the right place on ops (4km is not a very big bubble) on the off-chance that it will be useful. Fit an automated alerting device (HVM already has one) and you don’t need to dedicate a crew to watching the skies.

    The improved surveillance gear would also be effective in a ground role as well.

    If you could also install a Starstreak-compatible launcher on your IFVs then you have HVM and LMM available that can quadruple your ground role reach.
32. Chris.B. June 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    “Radar and EO trackers would cost the same whatever platform it is on”

    That depends on whether you want “every IFV an AA asset” or if you’re just talking about an AA asset based on the common IFV chassis. I think a lot of it would all depend on who Thales is pushing this thing at and where they intended it to be operated.
33. James June 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    Mr Fred,

    IFVs tend to spend most of their time bimbling around in close proximity to each other. Spatial coverage is not their job.

    Everyone else has got the day job to do.

    It’s why we have dedicated AD units.
34. Mr.fred June 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    ChrisB,

    I did say one in four.

    If tactics preclude an organic AAD weapon at the platoon level, then perhaps a dedicated system is necessary. I would advocate using an IFV with uprated sights and sensor fits rather than a completely new system.
    Common systems and maintenance with the rest of the sub-unit.

    Larger than a company, can a 4km bubble protect that area?

    Dedicated AD units exist, in the current threat environment. If low-cost UAVs and platoon-level loitering munitions are the way things are going, then front-line units are going to need a capability to take them down. These aren’t going to be high-capability weapons needed to take down attack helicopters and fast jets. Just enough to blitz radio-controlled planes and slow-moving suicide drones out of the air.
35. Think Defence Post authorJune 13, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Interesting issue on whether to specialise or spread the load, don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer. I wonder how the proliferation of cheap and very low flying UAV’s in a complex and cluttered environment changes those compromises?
36. Tubby June 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Late to the debate, but the main usefulness of RAPIDFire is for base protection, and given the radar system and control elements already exist then its just the case of integrating the ct40 into the system. Obviously the best system would have a high of commonality with CAMM-L. I have typed this on my tablet so apologies if its a bit incomprehensible
37. Gareth Jones June 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Hmmmm – talking off the top of my head and crossing threads somewhat but… would something like the Russian BMP-T based on the AS9O chassis work? With the RAPIDfire 40mm/Starsteak (or LMM?) and sensors it could become a multi-role escort vehicle; maybe not effective as dedicated units at AD for example but offering useful support to front line units?
38. Tubby June 14, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    I know this is likely not quite the right thread to post this, but reading up on CAMM(L) last night, I notice that CAMM(L) is only the effector part of an integrated air defence system, and CAMM(L) is described as sensor agnostic with target data passed to the launcher by secure datalink, which means that obviously CAMM(L) will be a node in a networked air defence system which will need to include a radar and/or an OE sensor system to detect hostile aircraft and a C2 system to control the multiple launchers required to provide 360 degree coverage. Does anyone know what we plan to use with CAMM(L) to create a complete network air defence system?
39. Chris.B. June 14, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Well the CV90 already has an AA version, with a radome and 2x40mm guns. A lot depends on the nature of the target. At long ranges and low levels you might be able to elevate a standard gun to hit the target using APFSDS or timed air burst rounds. Something close, or higher, (or both) will need a dedicated high elevation weapon. You could spank money trying to convert an existing turret that wasn’t designed for the role, or you could just buy something like RapidFire.

    Question is how likely are we to actually come up against such targets?
40. wf June 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    @Chris.B : given the Bosnian, Kosovan and Afghan experiences (well, not Helmand, but more generally), having a high altitude weapon could be seen as very valuable, and given the number of locations that could benefit from C-RAM, having a proportion of IFV’s with with some capability could prove very useful. Plus, those pesky swarming UAV’s have to be knocked down somehow…
41. Mr.fred June 14, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    CV9040AAV has a single 40mm cannon, similar to the IFV version but with better elevation, apparently.

    IFVs are usually able to elevate to a decent angle, above 45 degrees, so as long as the target is no closer than it is high then an unmodified IFV could engage it. If you can elevate to 60 degrees, then the target has to be twice as high as their distance from the vehicle. However, if you have multiple firing units, overlapping defence becomes possible. The more units you have the greater the likelihood of one being able to cover another.

    I don’t think that IFVs would necessarily be capable C-RAM but the rate of fire may be too low to put heavy hits on a very small, very fast and reasonably tough targets.
42. Chris.B. June 14, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    I swear they made a twin barrel version at one point?

    Anyway, we need to differentiate “shooting at” from “having a decent chance of hitting”. Without an AD radar you’re guessing how to lay the gun accurately.
43. Mr.fred June 14, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    We’re not after fast jets or AH here, but relatively slow UAVs. If you can put an aiming mark on it and lase it, modern fire control and shrapnel shells will hit it.

    Radar is for picking the target up in the first place as much as anything else.
44. Chris.B. June 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    “If you can put an aiming mark on it and lase it, modern fire control and shrapnel shells will hit it.”

    Erm, no. Unless it’s standing still, in which case yes. But if it’s moving, no. Even “slow” moving UAV’s are going to whipping around the sky at a fair old rate of knots. The Scan Eagle for example can cruise at something like 60 knots. You’ll need a proper fire control radar to ensure a hit.
45. James June 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Mr Fred,

    the infantry don’t want to be shooting at shit in the sky from the IFVs. It’s not their job. They haven’t got any radars, they’ve got better things to do, they don’t want to illuminate themselves.

    It doesn’t matter about the geometry of turret angles or any other bollocks. They won’t be doing it. They won’t be in the right place on the battlefield to do it. The software in the FCS can’t do it. The infantryman can’t see the UAV to do it. The Company Commander is going to go ballistic when one of his wagons opens up and gives away his position.
46. James June 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    “If you can put an aiming mark on it and lase it, modern fire control and shrapnel shells will hit it”

    Have you got a clue what you are dribbling on about? Have you ever tried to lase a UAV in the sky? Do you know what is the speed differential between targets at various angles and relative angles and ranges and speed, if you don’t know the distance?
47. Mr.fred June 14, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    OK.

    I would suggest that I do have clue what I am talking about, else why would I post?

    If elevation limit is put forward as a problem then I am permitted to point out that most IFV have pretty generous elevation limits, why is it suddenly “Turret angles or any other bollocks”? Why is it such an affront that you must resort to coarse language?

    I don’t have a problem with it being a tactical issue, for discussion, but it is entirely possible to accomplish technically.

    60 knots is 31m/s. At 1km that’s 31mrad/sec, assuming a crossing target. It’s 1.8 degrees per second. Using the Thales Orion as an example sight it’s half the narrow field of view in a second, but it is constant.
    In wide field of view it will cross the sight picture in five seconds. The resolution of that sight is 7 pixels per milliradian in WFOV, which is about the size of a capital letter on a screen.

    That’s fairly quick and pretty small, but not impossible to track by hand on a power-operated turret* (CV90 is 60 degrees per second) In real life current and near-future system have autotrackers. If you can track you can lase as it’s speed of light. If it’s too difficult to put the beam on the target (but it shouldn’t be) then you could have an AA mode filter that diverges the beam on the laser rangefinder. It’s not like there is anything else up there that you will get a spurious reflection off.

    If you can lase and measure the rate you are tracking at, then you can work out lead because you know how fast it is going, how far away it is and how long your shot will take to reach the target. If you can lase multiple times you can work out how fast it is travelling towards or away from you. Add shrapnel shells bursting short of the target and you increase the area of effect of each shot, decreasing the effect of ballistic dispersion and increasing the chance of a hit per shot.

    Modern FCS will eat that up, no problems. You could run the algorithms in real time on a mobile phone.

    On the tactical aspect, I put it to the board that tactics are not a static and unchanging set of rigid rules. Does it matter if an IFV fires three rounds if the other option is to eat a loitering munition or let an observation UAV past and compromise your positions anyway?

    To summarise:
    There are in precisely the right place on the battlefield to do it. Where would be better?
    The software in a modern FCS is entirely capable of engaging a moving, airborne, target and directing the gun an munitions accordingly.
    The detection of the target is a problem, which is why I proposed enhanced sensors for either a proportion of the vehicles or dedicated vehicles on the same chassis and organic to a battlefield unit.
    The company commander may well go ballistic. If he has soldiers who disobey orders I would kind of expect him to. Would he still go ballistic if the scenario is a different one to that which you have described and he had ordered his men to engage and destroy UAVs?

    *I would note that HVM (Starstreak) and predecessors track manually and are supposedly effective against fast jets traveling 400-500kts
48. Chris.B. June 14, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Starstreak is a laser guided, beam riding weapon that can adjust on the fly to account for inaccuracies. Keep the pipper on the target and all is well. We’re talking about a system that needs to very precisely track and calculate lead. For the cost of making a suitable sight that can optically track and predict the target path, you might as well just buy a short ranged radar.
49. ArmChairCivvy June 14, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    RE ” a suitable sight that can optically track and predict the target path, you might as well just buy a short ranged radar.”
    - why bother with either, when the IR homing heads do exactly that?
    - it also results in a shorter flight path than for beam-riding missiles, meaning that for the same range and speed the probability of kill (before countermeasures being factored in; can anyone do that as there are so many kinds?)is better
    - beam-riding missiles are practically countermeasure proof, and the range and flight time penalty can be countered by increasing speed… and range. There is a limit, though, to what can be considered man-portable
50. Mr.fred June 14, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Chris.B.,
    I was wondering if I should break that down further. I see that I should have.
    The comparison with Starstreak (and Starburst, Javelin and Blowpipe) is that their targetting system requires a human operator to keep an aiming mark on a fast-moving, manoeuvring target. Therefore, I put forward the hypothesis that it is possible to track a moving target with a vehicle mounted weapon, using these weapons as evidence. Guidance isn’t the issue – I account for that separately. Just that it is possible for a man to track a moving target, one that is moving far faster and manoeuvring far harder than the target I am aiming for, with a weapon system.

    Now, moving beyond the comparison with the missile control HMI, I shall address the ability to put the shell where it is required.

    On the assumption that a target is flying in a straight line, I think that we should be able to agree that if I know two positions of an object in space and time, I can work out where it will be at any point in the future as long as it does not deviate from that flight line.

    I can determine the location in space from my position using bearings in azimuth, elevation and range. If these measurements are close enough together then the path between them will tend to a straight line. If I use this straight line to predict a third position in time and space, then I can set my shell to burst to hit something at this location. It’s simple mathematics that has been used for gunnery since the turn of last century with the big gun battleships. Modern computers and laser rangefinders give the ability to deal with faster, smaller targets with smaller shells. Calculating lead is easy. If I have more points along a line it will be more accurate as errors will average out, but the basic principle for calculating lead comes from two points, allowing you to put a shell into a third.

    Consider too, that a laser rangefinder works on exactly the same principles as a ranging radar with the only difference being the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation used and the coherency of the beam.