European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

kqcke for you said:
As far as i know both rounds are supposed to be the same in case diameter and length.
Click to expand...
Hrm. Interesting. That certainly removes one easy choice option.


kqcke for you said:
Things the projectile diameter, max./min. ... pressure are different.
Click to expand...
Given equal length penetrators, I'd rather have the one that runs at the lower pressure. Gives you more development room later on.



kqcke for you said:
And even if one is some 10-50mm longer the extra 10mm diameter are also „important“ for NLOS munitions.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. The Javelin is a 120mm (or close to that) diameter, so if the seeker etc fits in that form factor it'll fit in either one just fine.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Given equal length penetrators, I'd rather have the one that runs at the lower pressure. Gives you more development room later on.
Click to expand...
I try to look into it later to which has which.
Scott Kenny said:
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. The Javelin is a 120mm (or close to that) diameter, so if the seeker etc fits in that form factor it'll fit in either one just fine.
Click to expand...
Yes they javelin which both don't produce. In the end the 140mm makes it easier for france to refit ther MMP for example to which germany (rheinmetall) has no alternative.
 
Slightly amused that Rheinmetall managed to make an uncrewed turret which appears larger than most crewed turrets. On brand.
 
kqcke for you said:
So the 140mm Ascalon has a normal 120mm round case diameter of 160mm with 169mm at the rim. But its supposed to be 130cm long or 1300mm. The 130mm L52 also has 1.3m long muntion.
Click to expand...
And for some reason my brain went to "Let's just go ahead and go for the Supershot idea, punch the bore all the way out to ~160mm**" with no bottleneck to the case or taper.

** Note that if it was a brass case it'd be more like 155mm to account for case wall thickness.

But both the 130mm and 140mm have the same chamber volume and overall length? Okay, my vote is for the 140mm due to lower current operating pressures.
 
kqcke for you said:
Probaly the best concept we got in the eurosatory. Iron Fist, Strikeshield and MUSS 2.0. tought i would guess a production version would also carry TAPS so 4 kinds of APS systems. Thats a lot in many ways
Click to expand...
Exhibition proven !
 
jsport said:
www.defensenews.com

Europe’s armor industry must merge, Arquus boss says

Many middling companies are unable to muster the research-and-development oomph needed to push the market forward, according to Emmanuel Levacher.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I don't think it really makes sense... if anything consolidation was and is still ongoing in the European defence sector, and land equipment hasn't been an exception. UK and Swedish contractors largely consolidated under BAE systems, for France and Germany there is the recently formed KNDS alongside Rheinmetall and Arquus. As the article points out, Belgium's John Cockerill is consolidating with Arquus. Italy's IVECO largely lost the tracked-vehicle manufacturing expertise, and OTO Melara consolidated into Leonardo. Last but not least, there's GDELS which is perhaps the biggest and widest consolidation.

If further consolidation is possible, I'd say yes, but from this point it would be very complicated. Also, from European tax payers' perspective, I think it better stays this way for the foreseable future. Moreover, the interview highlights Turkey as an example for external competition European land defence sector is facing and a reason to consolidate, but Turkey itself has like 3~4 major armored vehicle manufacturers, which goes against the article's arguement; they have more armored vehicle designer/manufacturer than any of the individual European nations. If anything, the harsh competition they are facing are more to do with decades-long peace-dividend era and the inefficienies born from it, rather than lack of industry consolidation.
 
Eh, nothing new much in that article. Its mostly about disjointedness of european defense firms, lack of consolidation into bigger firms, no political will to do that
And generally lack of political will to work together on many different areas. From how to fund eu military to specific different needs of different eu countries, resulting in an example of many different tank subvariants etc etc. Germany amd France are made an example of two powerhouses that can't see eye to eye on many matters. Including the mgcs.
 
one opinion. France & Germany collab. on submarines & tanks & IFVs, & SPHs, small arms up to autocannnons and AAA no, on cargo planes & helicopters & fighter planes, probably surface combatants, high end drones et al. yes.

PS: low tech drones...IDK.
 
Last edited:
140mm could be more utile. Big enough to destroy next gen tanks with primary round's higher pressures. Large enough bore to employ secondary artillery rounds at lower pressures. If you could replace 152mm as standard round you simplify logistics train further yet.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom