Comments

Comments RSS Feed

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/comments/feed/

 

  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinkingmr.fred - effective armour needs layers and the bolts you question hold the outer layer of armour in place. As designed this is not applique as the base protection needs its presence. It is simply part of the vehicle. I can do no more than say I have not designed...
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingChris, I’m not sure that you do understand my point, insomuch as I have one. The 8x8s with their modular armour do have armoured hulls. The appliqué systems that they fit to all surfaces, including behind the wheels, are the mass efficient way to provide protection, but are based on...
  • JohnHartley on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingOne missed medium tank opportunity, was the Vickers MK3 (M), whose prototype was running in 1997. An updated Vickers MK3, with ERA, developed for the Malaysian Army. A financial crisis stopped the purchase. I think it a shame that the British Army did not get 75 or so, as a...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingMark - I think its a matter of military utility. I recall visits to the sheds on trials way back in the 90s where the RTR Challenger crews were hugely disparaging about the value of CVR(T), to the point that they clearly thought them pointless and that all tasks could...
  • Simon on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingField-fitted applique makes a lot of sense to me but only for transportability limits. E.g. Chinook 10t vehicle + x tonnes of applique. Or A400M 37t base Ajax + 5t of applique.
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingAppliqué doesn’t have to be ceramic, flat or limited to certain areas. Most, if not all, modern AFVs derive their protection from appliqué systems. There will be weak spots in any armour schemes. Stanag 4569 allows for this and even defines what is counted as protected and what isn’t.
  • DavidNiven on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingChris The systems thinking is obviously a massive logistical bonus, but I'm not sure where these vehicles are pitched. My understanding is you are suggesting that we replace everything bar heavy formations with this concept. If so will we not end up facing a medium gap which we already have...
  • Mark on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingInteresting read from someone who is a novice at vehicles. But as an engineer I like the systems engineering approach behind these concepts and something sadly lacking across much of defence. “Now put yourself in the shoes of Military Command. Knowing that if they field the vehicle in its base...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinkingmr.fred - while I can see logic in your approach I struggle with practicality. I can see a case (indeed anyone looking at AFVs sees the case everywhere they look) for 'wallhanging' applique that adds to the most obvious exposed plates of armour, but in my view the armour effectiveness...
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingAlso, on turrets, you might also consider Rafael's Sampson Mk2 or Kongsberg's MCT for remote systems. And for suspension upgrades, I was thinking more along the lines of being able to adjust it and/or fit uprated parts rather than fitting over engineered systems from the get-go.
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingI was running on the assumption that armour arrays were the staple of any AFV these days and consequently the outer layers would be appliqué as a matter of course, rather than heaping masses of additional armour on a light platform. You would have a base structural layer and then...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingEdS - important stuff first - yes every vehicle has a BV (more accurately a model of the RAK30) fitted, even Raðe. Rest easy. 1. The use of COTS turrets with the likes of Mk44 gun in other vehicles is not straightforward. The vehicles are small and (in the case...
  • EdS on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingHi Chris, Thanks for the very interesting article. Seems like a very sensible proposal and I wish you success in getting the MOD to buy into it. A few comments and questions: 1. You mentioned turrets such as Lance or Hitfist for the Raven... Much as it would be good...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinkingmr.fred - yes and no. As noted above in the main text I am sure RPG protection is a good thing and suggested Tarian nets offered the best solution for light armour. I also noted ABBS's blast acceleration attenuation system was worth fitting. But I set out deliberately to design...
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingAlthough the Warrior’s armour fit is a good example of what I am talking about. In Iraq it was fitted with the corrugated ERA setup but when it was deployed to Afghanistan, that got taken off and replaced with less effective, but lighter, bar armour, because it needed the mobility...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinkingmr.fred - let me offer a reason why such excellent adaptability turns out to be redundant. Imagine a vehicle with baseline L2 armour - good against small arms only - with great heavy slabs of applique armour that increases the protection to L5. Now assume the vehicle is designed with...
  • mr.fred on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingOn the subject of removable appliqué armour, I would think that it’s a good idea to design into any given vehicle as it gives you a chance to modify you protection and mobility to suit the environment. Although if you are changing the vehicle weight substantially you also need to...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingSD - I really doubt I did everything to perfection but I've tried hard to do what's right. And anything that needs revision can of course be sorted once issues are identified.
  • steven duckworth on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinking@Chris According to the latest research the population of the USA has stopped increasing in average hight partly due to dietary issues so perhaps we will plateau out too? As you say the bulk of the kit a modern soldier needs to wear is dramatically bigger than say the 60's...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingSD - just so. Don't forget the volume added by body armour and wearable tech. Someone should get a Uni to study the dramatic increase in average height that has happened over the past 40 years or so. Natural selection? I don't think so. It would be interesting to compare...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingAnt - as I understand the state of the art and with experience of one modern armoured vehicle with optional applique, there isn't anything particularly difficult about hanging extra armour on the outside of a vehicle. Its just very very heavy. So at minimum a hoist or crane, or MHE...
  • steven duckworth on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingI believe that the post WW2 Japanese designed Type 61 MBT took advantage of the then smaller stature of the Japanese soldiers IIRC . It enabled them to produce a 90mm armed MBT 6m long by 3m wide by 2.5m high weighing only 35t. However today that 97% percentile is...
  • Chris on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingAnt - don't take the 20% figure as a cast-iron guaranteed weight saving - as I noted there are many aspects of the design that wouldn't scale neatly so the figure would end up somewhere between 'big person' vehicle weight and a weight 20% less. Without doing the whole design...
  • Ant on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems ThinkingOn a different tack; Puma has extra add-on armour available taking it from (stretching my memory) from ~35 tons (A-400M deliverable) to 44 tons (which is not). Could you design a "Hobart's Funny" to mechanise/facilitate rapid post-delivery up-armouring in the field? You can follow my gist (a bit tangentially) here:...
  • Ant on Anglo Engineering Concepts – Back to Systems Thinking@Chris Thank you. So if I understand correctly, there is a very considerable 20% weight reduction to be had, although this would not translate into a radical new capability in terms of transportation. But that 20% is very valuable in giving a smaller target, plus numerous collateral advantages, including further...

↓