 |
| 57-mm module's concept from UVZ |
Thursday, February 19, 2015
57-mm module's concept from UVZ
Thanks to Info-Infantrie for the link!
The Russians are going big in their next generation IFV when it comes to weaponry. We're really looking at a hybrid vehicle...almost an infantry carrying light tank. This is going to be something that the USMC should consider when selecting the weapons fit for the upcoming ACV. They're sold on the .50 cal right now. Should we go bigger? The Russians WILL be selling retro-fit kit and new vehicles on the international markets. We can expect to run into these vehicles sooner or later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Shame on me, sir. I forgot to give a link. My fault will be corrected
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uvz.ru/presscenter/release/708
"For the first time an “uninhabited” combat module with a rapid-firing 57 mm cannon (the design of R&D center "Burevestnik/Petrel") will be presented in the integration with a 8x8 chassis designed with EMRATES DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY (UAE). The uniqueness of this module is in its layout solutions, high power of ammunition that would allow to hit the battlefield armored most of the existing facilities. “Uninhabited” combat module is designed for installation on existing and prospective armored combat vehicles due to their modernization."
geez. so this thing is ready for prime time right now? amazing. they're serious about this stuff.
ReplyDeleteBuying Russian? NO! Way to risky, but they do have some interesting ideas.
ReplyDeleteI would probably chose an automatic 40mm Bofors type canon with programmable ammunition.
Big enough and smart!
Maybe use it on top of a vehicle that takes some inspiration from the PTS4: big and using known components.
I've viewed a CV90 as a light tank (baby Merkava?) for a long time. Of course you have to get them on the beach before they can be in the fight, but that is a whole other issue....
ReplyDeleteMarine Corps leadership seems to be moving toward total dependence on landing craft. while i disagree with the direction, it would solve the problem of making our armor swimmable. i still think its a mistake but there you have it. the Navy is going to get tired of paying the bill for Marine COrps indecision, vacillation and mistakes though.
ReplyDeleteThe 0.5 cal is ok for now, you chose the weapon for the effect, not the size, and 0.5 cal SLAP is enough for anything short of a light tank. 25mm +/- can actually punch through a T-72 given enough time to work it over. Against BTRs, BRDMs and BMPs, 12.7mm SLAP will do.
ReplyDeleteThe selling point of the medium calibre guns are the potential airburst features and the ability to knock holes in walls (i.e the explosives they carry), not rip apart smaller vehicles, which the M2 can do for much less weight, complexity and a greater ammo capacity.
Of course, Sol is also right in that it might not be sufficient in the future. It all depends on what will happen. If the Russians keep on ERA or NERA, the 12.7 should not have a problem bypassing the reactive plating, not active enough to set it off IIRC (might have changed, almost a decade since I kept up), but if they went ceramic composite, that could be a problem.
.50 cal absolutely does not have the effective range necessary to engage anything in a 23mm or bigger vehicle, let alone be able to engage infantry that are armed with ATGM. A .50 cal. is a fair secondary weapon though, or fair supplement if coupled with a 40mm gl perhaps + TOW, sure. That .50 cal as a primary weapon is ok for a light recon vehicle, but totally inadequate as the primary weapon for a multi-million dollar ACV.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to 40mm, we should probably go directly to 40mm CTA. Its a much more compact system with much better functionality. And allows us to leverage the significant investments already made by France and the UK. Plus CTA is going to be the future for small and medium caliber anyways, so might as well embrace it.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem with 57mm though is ammo storage. Those rounds aren't exactly small.
ReplyDeletenegative. the 40mm isn't enough of an improvement over the 30mm to justify the move. besides we wouldn't be leveraging their investment. we'd be funding its implementation because neither Britain or France have actually moved to put it on their vehicles. future plans mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteIf there was anyone intelligent running the MPC/ACV deal, they would give serious consideration to GD's entry (because it is likely based on the LAV series, ie. Stryker) coupled with a Kongsberg turret. Why? Because it is possible that the Army will start upgrading Strykers with them.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, even if sequestration is lifted, the USMC will want as much commonality as possible in order to piggy-back off of supply and maintenance lines.
Similarly, I would be very surprised if a Kongsberg Protector turret + 30mm cannon was not present on whatever upgrade comes to the Bradleys. The turret is unmanned so they save room and get a lethality increase. Again, they seem to be pretty set on the Kongsbergs, though the ATK30 is probably better for the Stryker simply because of the size and weight savings over the fully stabilized, larger turrets.