New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Lance Wiebe]

For those not in the know, DU has three major advantages over Tungsten carbide.  It is "self-sharpening" for one thing, this alone increases the penetration by about 5-10%.  It's phosphuric nature results in nice after-penetration fires.  And, it is far cheaper to both acquire and machine than tungsten.

 

[12alfa]

For those not in the know, DU has three major advantages over Tungsten carbide.   It is "self-sharpening" for one thing, this alone increases the penetration by about 5-10%.   It's phosphuric nature results in nice after-penetration fires.   And, it is far cheaper to both acquire and machine than tungsten.

Agreed regarding tungsten  vs DU, but modern tungsten
penetrators (for tank guns anyway, don't know about smaller
calibers) have long ago moved from WC to various metal alloys
like W-Ni-Fe. The W alloys are heavier and consdireably more
ductile than fragile WC which was useful for only steel-sheathed
rounds, and looking at the penetration figures they don't seem to
be in any sort of serious disadvantage compared to contemporary
DU ammo. They do lack the DU's pyrophoric effects though, but with
numerous red-hot supersonic fragments flying inside the tank, I'm
not sure if that's really a critical difference. Currently there
are more advanced and heavier W alloys with some degree of
DU-like self-sharpening effect are being developed, these might
even surpass the DU in penetration power
A liquid tungsten penetrator, and its already been
tested and exhibites a 10-20% improvement over existing WHA penetrators.
This is a Tungsten matrix with glass grains and only weights 17 g/cm ³ .
.Another is tungsten monocrystals that
exhibit the density and penetration of DU but are horribly expensive.
For the record , all other things being equal, DU out penetrates WHA by
10-13%
From the periodic chart of elements (from the "Research & Education Association"), Uranium
has a density of 19.07 and Tungsten has a density of 19.35 g/cc.
This is confirmed in the Metal's Handbook, Desk Edition,
2nd edition, pg692 (Special-Purpose Metals, Table 1):
Density of Uranium: 19.1 (g/cm^3)
Density of Tungsten: 19.3

So if at a given striking velocity WHA penetrates the lenght of the
penetrator rod , then DU while penetrate 1.1 to 1.13 times the rod
lenght.The new Tungsten glass penetrators will penetrate 1.1-1.2 times
its rod lenght. Tungsten has the advantage in this case.

On being cheaper, well its really how one looks at it. By cost yes, but factor in the safety regs required to machine, store, handle and the coating of the Du rounds, can it be cheaper to make than a standard Tu round with none of the special requirments. I will agree that the base price for Du is lower, but the process is higer.
But i degress......................

 

[Lance Wiebe]

There are indeed, great strides being done by the various non-DU projectile research teams.  However, these rounds are not available today, and several will most likely not pan out at all.

Huge amounts of research is being conducted in Germany, I would expect that sometime within the next decade we will see a very capable tungsten warhead indeed.

Good research, by the way!

 

[12alfa]

tanks,
i like to stay informed on the ammo vs armour fight.
I think that so called rail guns will surpass ammo soon though.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Hey, rail guns need ammunition too, ya know! ;D

That's one of the reasons I think so much effort and research is going in to tungsten.  Can you imagine the stresses that would be placed on a projectile flying at 7,000 or more metres per second striking armour?

Railguns need huge amounts of power, despite literally decades of research and billions of dollars, they are still not feasable.  Maybe in a couple more decades.

I saw the Canadian version of the rail gun at DREV in 1984.  Quite impressive, and quite the opposite of being even remotely portable!

 

[Acorn]

On being cheaper, well its really how one looks at it. By cost yes, but factor in the safety regs required to machine, store, handle and the coating of the Du rounds, can it be cheaper to make than a standard Tu round with none of the special requirments. I will agree that the base price for Du is lower, but the process is higer.
But i degress......................

From it's production as a byproduct of the nuclear energy industry, to it's finding itself in the ammo bin of an M1A2 DU is cheaper than tungsten by a good deal. It is also machined as counterweights for the aviation industry, and as armour, as well as a variety of other applications.

The CF hasn't used DU in any weapon since the mid-'90s (last used in the CWIS on the Navy's ships). It is still in use in the CF in some aircraft applications (I believe it is used as counter-weights in the Aurora aircraft - one of the Observers who posts here may be able to confirm).

Acorn

 

[12alfa]

From it's production as a byproduct of the nuclear energy industry, to it's finding itself in the ammo bin of an M1A2 DU is cheaper than tungsten by a good deal.

Acorn

From waht Iv'e read in many pubs, thats not true. tungsten does not require any special production procedures. DU does, and it will catch on fire if heated in the machining process, unlike Tungsten. DU requires air filters, masks, gloves, as the process can cause bad things to us humans as you know.
Tell me, would you like to work in a shop milling DU darts without the saftey procedures in place rather than in a shop milling tungsten.

Companys charge more per round for DU as stated by them. We use it for the reason of it is simply the best for killing tanks, and the vast stockpile of DU in the USA. The DU is cheap, the production is where is cost is, unlike tungsten which is $$ to start with.

 

[Acorn]

While tungsten won't catch fire during te milling process, it's still a heavy metal, and would require similar safety equipment to prevent it's inhalation or contact with open wounds. Heavy metals are poisonous, but usually only when ingested. That also applies to DU - it must be taken into the body to cause problems. It's not significantly radioactive. Tungsten dust, if inhaled, would cause major health problems as well.

I'm not aware that companies charge more per round for DU. I was under the impression that the price per unit was more for tungsten (certainly was the case 15 years ago). Got any refs?

Acorn

 

[12alfa]

Found data on AP rounds but still checking my data for the others...

M829 cost around $1500
120mm APFSDS round $4,000

From http://american-apex.com/americanapex/comparisons.asp

Ammunition Cost Comparison

Ammunition Cost per Round
120mm HEAT M831A1 $654.69
120mm SABOT M865 $607.22
105mm TPDS-T *$265.00
105mm TP HEAT *$235.00
cal .50 APIT M20 $2.50
cal .50 SLAP-T M962 $12.50

From:
Appropriation/Budget Activity/Serial No. P-1 Line Item Nomenclature: Weapon System Type: Date:
Procurement of Ammunition, Army / 1 / Ammunition Ctg, 120mm APFSDS M829A3 (E78013)

AMMO ID  FY 05
AMMUNITION HARDWARE (Ctg, 120mm APFSDS M829A3)
Complete Round-(UnitCost) x 1000)=$5001

PRODUCTION SUPPORT COSTS
Production Engineering=$2914
Acceptance Testing=$947
SubTotal Production Support=$3861

 

[Steel Badger]

MGS or ROOIKAT?

Apparently the 105 'Kat is fully functional......and tested.....


Would it cover the role of a DFSV / Hvy Recce veh?

 

[a_majoor]

The Rooikat would make an excellent Cavalry vehicle, being fast, fairly hard hitting and so on. The turret gives good SA, and I am sure there are more than 18 rounds carried within.

The Rooikat has the same limitations as the MGS; having limited off road mobility and armour, and as a rear engined vehicle, the hull is not as adaptable as the LAV or Centurio series. For any wheeled vehicle to be a serious contender, it needs to have a very low ground pressure. The lower hull would have to be redesigned for very wide wheels (and probably fixed wheels using differential steering), and end up looking a bit like an ARGO all terrain vehicle, or the CASR alternative MGS study http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm.

 

[Expat]

Some Russian stuff does look good.

MBT Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle)  Looks interesting. Rumors of 155mm gun.

Also the T95 Proposal looks really interesting. Low profile, 2 tanker crew and un-maned turret.

Oh well the MBT is going with the way of the DODO in the CF.

 

[Blue Max]

Interesting that another member of NATO that had recently held a very expensive Olympics, feels compeled to live up to their NATO agreements, and still finds MBT's relevant.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446530/posts

ATHENS (AFP) - Greece will purchase 30 F-16/Block 52 fighter aircraft in a direct deal with the United States government for about 1.1 billion euros (1.32 billion dollars), Greek Defense Minister Spilios Spiliotopoulos said.

Athens will also sign an option to obtain 10 more aircraft of the same type for operational needs as part of a four-year arms programme extending to 2010, the minister said following a meeting of the Greek state council of foreign affairs and defense (KYSEA).

The final cost of the contract will depend on the offer tendered by the US government, Spiliotopoulos said.

The Greek defense ministry will request the provision of maintenance support for the F-16 planes as part of the offset deal, he added.

In April, the government said it would reexamine a deal sealed by its socialist predecessors for the purchase of 60 Eurofighter aircraft from European consortium EADS at an estimated cost of 1.7 billion euros.

The state council will decide at a later meeting whether to buy a further 30 fighter planes, with an option for another 10, the minister said.

The F-16/Block 52 is the latest generation of the popular fighter, which first appeared in the 1980's.

Spiliotopoulos and Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis both visited the United States earlier this year, respectively in April and May. At the time, the Greek press had reported that the government was examining proposals for F-16 planes.

The minister also announced on Tuesday the approval of a contract with the German government for 333 Leopard tanks.

Originally scheduled to order 170 Leopard 2A5-class tanks from Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), the Greek government modified the deal to include 183 Leopard 2A4's and 150 Leopard 1A5's for an additional 325 million euros (392 million dollars).

The renegotiated deal is to be signed soon, a defense ministry source told AFP.

 

[Kirkhill]

Reprinted from another website.  Perhaps one of the folks that can read Chinese can let me know from which source the article originated.

This was prompted by the mention of F16s and M1A1s in the same article about the Greeks.

Operating Costs
http://taiwantp.com/cgi/TWforum.pl?board_id=1&type=show_post&post=23


flak ã æ-¼ã 2003/10/17 00:58

Reominate Maneuver! 裝甲éĬ隊輕量åŒ-[èΦ館推è-¦]

é›-然é ™種ç®â€”法有é»žé­”é“ï¼Œä½†è æ˜¯å-œæ­¡èªªæˆ°è»Šæ“ä½œæˆæœ¬å¾ˆä¾¿å®Å“çš„人可以想ä¸ 想ã ‚
September 15, 2003: Its more expensive to operate an M-1 tank than an F-16 fighter. Dont be surprised, as modern armored vehicles are very expensive to run, with an M-1 tank costing about $300 per kilometer travelled to operate, and an M-2 Bradley, some $100 per kilometer. This does not include ammunition used. In peace time, one of the biggest expense is the tracks. For a Bradley armored vehicle, it costs $18 per kilometer for the wear and tear on the tracks. A set of tracks only last about 1300 kilometers, after which they have to replaced with a new set costing $23,000. Normally, the tracks are only replaced once a year, giving the troops a budget of about a hundred kilometers a month for training on each vehicle. But in the advance on Baghdad, many Bradleys racked up over a thousand kilometers. Since then, the Bradleys have been used for patrolling, covering hundreds of kilometers a week.
There are a lot of components on these armored vehicles that wear out when used, especially the engines, air conditioning and electronics. Its for this reason that many armys have long used heavy tractor trailers to haul tanks and other armored vehicles to the battle zone. This was a lot cheaper than letting the vehicles rumble along on their own.
Aircraft are even more expensive to operate, although their unit of measure is the hour. Most warplanes cost $3,000-$5,000 an hour to run. But given the high speed they operate at, their cost per kilometer traveled is only $5-$10. Helicopters are a different story, as they will spend some time just hovering. But they are expensive as well, with it costing about $3,200 an hour to keep an AH-64 Apache gunship in the air, and about half that for an UH-60 Black Hawk transport. A tank, if moving most of the time, is only going to average about twenty kilometers an hour, giving it an hourly operating cost of $6,000. So, in effect, its more expensive to operate an M-1 tank than an F-16 fighter.
To keep the costs down, very realistic vehicle simulators are being used. These cost $3-5 an hour to operate and are becoming increasingly popular. But the need to operate so many armored vehicles every day in Iraq is one of the things driving the cost up.

These numbers contribute to the bases on which decisions are made.

Cheers.

 

[Blue Max]

Kirkhill, is this simply information that you are posting (is it accurate?) or do you hold the view that Canada doesn't need MBT's due to their high operational cost?

I questioned the articles accuracy because you yourself questioned the source.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am posting information to add to the debate.

I posted this particular article because it contained a fairly vivid summary of costs.  While the source of the information is not known to me (ie the author and publisher) the numbers contained therein jibe with numbers that I have seen in other articles,  including articles on wear and tear on tracked vehicles in Iraq, published in National Defense Magazine.  The 1300 km and $23,000 struck a chord with me as being in tune an NDM article that I posted here.

As to NEEDING due to Cost.  -  Bit of a Mug's game that.

There is a high operational cost.  The high operational cost contributes to deciding whether or not the budget will sustain them. 

Whether they are NEEDED will depend on the missions we undertake and what the enemy decides to do.  As long as we have a choice in where we wish to fight, where to send our troops then we can choose to send our troops to places where tanks can't go - Hans Island, The Whaleback, Muskeg of Northern Ontario, streets of the Old Town in Basra. 

The government and staff have decided conjointly that tanks are not on the horizon.  As long as they keep picking battlefields that are either unfriendly to tanks or otherwise inaccessible then everything will probably work out OK. 

When they get it wrong, other technologies, like PGMs, will get them out of another bunch of tight spots.

And occasionally they will get it totally wrong and enter into an operation where they needed tanks but didn't have them.

Just like other countries have occasionally needed infanteers instead of tanks and didn't have them.

Now ask me if I would prefer to see a 70 tonne APC instead of a 70 tonne Tank.

Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030918.asp

I found the original article - James Dunnigan

And there is this.

Lately, workers have had to discard more shoes than usual. Under normal wear, Bradley tracks are changed once a year, after 1,000 miles of wear. Today they are reaching the 1,000-mile mark in two or three months. As a result, the Red River production facility, the Army's only in-house source of Bradley tracks (Goodyear does some limited work), has gone from producing 5,000 to 6,000 shoes a month (enough to outfit about 30 Bradleys) to as many as 18,000 a month (enough for about 107 Bradleys). This year, the facility has ramped up from three shifts, five days a week, to three shifts - including one that's 12 hours long - seven days a week. The number of federal workers at the rubber plant has increased from 78 to 128 and more contractors have been brought on under short-term contracts to help cover the added shifts.

http://www.govexec.com/features/1203/1203s4.htm

Cheers

PS I can't seem to relocate the NDM article that I posted on this board some months ago detailing track wear.

 

[Blue Max]

I believe that Canadian politicians have been fortunate in the last 50yrs in that they have had the luxury of being able to pick and choose the battles that our armed forces have been sent to fight.

Having said that and keeping In mind that old oxymoron joke about military intelligence, I do not recall reading in any militaries list of equipment a crystal ball to see the future, I think it is more analogist to drawing a line between the dots, except they don't always make an outline of a pirate ship.

In all seriousness, while the present instabilities that attract the attention of our DND are able to be handled by our light forces, there is no one weapon system that can do all defense/offense jobs for all situations. Hence I find it confusing that our DND does not do a better job of educating politicians/public as to why there are so many tools necessary for a military force to do the unforeseen jobs that they will be called upon to accomplish with a reasonable chance of success.

If the govt and DND can assure us that we will not need MBT's in the future then I will be sure to ask them If I really need to buy house insurance for the next 10yrs.  :

Sorry for the sarcasm, returning to our regular programming now. ;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

One of the things that perplexes me about the retention of any MBT is the well worn and never addressed problem of how to transport it to theatre in a CF platform such as a ship or aircraft. Unless the USA or Anatov transports it, we are SOL. Even the JSS will not transport an MBT like the Leo- the maximum Ro-Ro weight is set out at 30T in the SOR for that ship. We will likely not acquire a LCU with the guts to take an MBT from an LPD to the shore.

The JSS could transport the MGS and maybe a heavier engineering vehicle, but for now sealifting the MBT is not an option that is readily apparent in the current literature on the subject.   It would appear that <30T is the weight of any proposed MBT for future Canadian purposes where mass transport to theatre will be required in a CF ship.

Note that the large civi Ro-Ro for transport into a safe harbour with a functional pier will remain an option for offloading MBT, but I think we are moving away from civi txpt for advance forces. We would probably still use them for vanguard purposes if the harbour is guaranteed to be secure.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we would be further ahead to see the JSS relieved of the responsibility of transporting any portion of the army task force - vehicles, command, support or personnel.   Leave the JSS as an AOR with some accomodation and a hangar and focus on acquiring a dedicated platform or two that will transport and support a task force at 25 to 30 kts.  

Its cheap to buy an empty hull to transport lots of weight and volume quickly or even just to act as a floating, repositionable warehouse.   The more capabilities you cram in, the more expensive it becomes. The closer you want it to get to the enemy the more expensive it becomes.

Not much difference in cost between a vessel with a 100 tonne ramp and a 40 tonne ramp I wouldn't think.

The real problem for the tank is the need for a transporter, fuel tankers, truck for the spare tracks and engine, and a heavy recovery vehicle, not to mention all the bodies necessary to man those vehicles.