http://www.janes.com/article/60318/rheinmetall-to-unveil-130mm-smoothbore-tank-gun-at-eurosatoryRheinmetall to unveil 130mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory
Rheinmetall is developing a 130mm smoothbore tank gun that will be unveiled at the Eurostatory exhibition in June, company officials have confirmed to IHS Jane's .
According to Werner Kraemer, president of Rheinmetall Waffe Munition's executive board, the new 130 mm gun should be in production by 2025.
The new tank gun is intended to be a match for the current and new generations of Russian armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), including the T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT).
A new MBT turret is also being designed alongside the new gun. The new turret design is understood to be based on an existing Leopard 2 MBT turret reconfigured to cope with the new weapon.
Tanks usually are not destroyed by penetration or enemy fire. Especially when care is taken to prevent the ammunition from detonating inside the fighting compartment. Tanks in intense combat can be expected to be penetrated, knocked out, repaired and returned to service many times; repairing a 9 million dollar tank does not cost 9 million dollars, it isn't expensive at all and can usually be done in a very short time by a competent repair service. Especially newer tanks like the Merkava IV, which were designed with rapid repair in mind.cluttonfred said:Well, the former Soviet military was not known for the economics of some of their decisions, and presumably the Russian military has maintained that tradition. Not that other countries, most especially the USA necessarily do better, mind you. But when tank that costs $9 million (1999 M1A2 Abrams price adjusted for inflation) or more can be taken out by missile that costs $250,000 (price of current generation Javelin) or less, does the next generation tank really need a bigger and better gun for tank-vs.-tank combat? It reminds me of the stubborn efforts by some to maintain old technology in the face of new developments, like the Italians retaining the Fiat CR.42 in front line service for far too long--a fantastic biplane still being built when the day of the biplane was long over.
IIRC when I watched a M1A2 video the space for the loader to pull the shell, swing it around and load it is pretty tight so we may also be talking about an autoloader or a turret redesign.TomS said:This image is pretty infomrative:
That's the old 120mm round on the right, and the new 130mm on the left. Not much difference in case diameter, but the case length is about 50% longer (just eyeballing), which translates pretty directly into propellant volume. That's going to be a very hot round (and pretty hard to manhandle -- 120mm was said to be right at the limit for manual loading and this will be much heavier.)
True but it will still require an autoloader to maintain a rate of fire comparable to existing 120mm guns and a similar amount of design work to incorporate the gun + autoloader into new variants of existing MBTs.Abraham Gubler said:It will be smaller.
One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.TomS said:Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.
Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?sferrin said:One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.TomS said:Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.
The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)bobbymike said:
You need to remain in place to guide the missiles, when they fly directly to their targets. The size of the launch signature as such is a clear guide to where the launcher is and more than likely where the guidance package is. Not a good idea on a modern battlefield.sferrin said:
When you can outrange a tank's main gun and hit a target 3+km away in about a second of flight time shoot and scoot with a lighter vehicle seems a reasonable CONOPSsferrin said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Mssferrin said:The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
Upon further thought I'd bet it's the laser designator less than the exhaust trail that's the issue. You could easily put the missiles on low-profile, unmanned, "roamers" while designating targets from a manned vehicle thus keeping the launch signature away from the command vehicle. Problem is, many armored vehicles have (or will have) detectors that alert them to if they're being "painted" and from where. The laser itself is the give-away I'd wager.Maury Markowitz said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Mssferrin said:The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
The smoke trail points directly to the launcher, and is persistent. Shoot-n-scoot is great, but there's no way you can move a humv fast enough to avoid getting nailed by you target's wingy.
Some possible images of this - please note that I am not sure if a couple of these are actually photoshopped.muttbutt said:IAV 2019: Nexter tests 140 mm gun on Leclerc MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
24 January 2019