Ukraine at one point made a T64E with  23mm GSH cannon turret added .

There's always a bit of an issue with mounting a CT40 coaxially with anything else is that the feed and eject take up the space immediately adjacent to the gun along the elevating axis, which does rather compromise the ability to make a compact turret.

On the slide shown, where does the main armament go? I think with the CT40 you'd end up with it on an independent elevation axis some distance from that of the main gun. On the plus side the short inboard length would mean that you can get somewhat higher elevation without needing to go into the hull at all.

schnuersi said...

Full scale SPAA does not only swat drones. That is bascially a byproduct by its ablility to establish a no fly zone in its area of influence. It can engage the full range of erial targets out to conciderable distance. A modern one also should be C-RAM capable.
This means sensor, FCS and weapons to do that. Which is far behond what modern IFVs can do.

Given the fairly short range of gun-based systems it would seem to me to be advantageous to aim for greater numbers of basic systems than fewer exquisite systems.

In terms of weapons, are you thinking higher rates of fire, higher calibre or both, when compared to IFV weapons?

RovingPedant said:

In terms of weapons, are you thinking higher rates of fire, higher calibre or both, when compared to IFV weapons?

I'd say 40mm CTA but with search and targeting radar as well as VSHORAD like Starstreak. use the ADS's MMR as targeting radar and add Giraffe 1X or similar

RovingPedant said:

On the slide shown, where does the main armament go? I think with the CT40 you'd end up with it on an independent elevation axis some distance from that of the main gun.

Good point.  The feed/eject diagram makes mounting the CT40 adjacent to the main gun appear problematic.

I guess I am a traditionalist. I prefer an evolution of existing MBTs (with APS, RWS, high-resolution thermals, staring EO suites with AI assistance, etc). 4 crew makes maintenance easier, and 70+ tons doesn't bother me.

I think a 30x113 RWS with a pair of spike would compliment the main gun just fine, and anything that will survive that can eat a 120, though I 100% agree that most RWS today are too high profile for my liking.  For IFV/APC I am very fond of the Namer and its new unmanned turret (though I'd prefer it in 40 CT)

Entertaining this line of thought though, since we are talking unmanned turrets, your autocannon doesn't have to really be under armor.  Half the benefit of an unmanned turret is that the protected area can be made much smaller, so you can have more protection for the same weight, or less weight for the same protection (what we're interested in, if the idea is to reduce the overall weight of the tank). If you do it like the Strv 2000 concept (autocannon like a big coax under armor) the internal volume and weight goes back up.

Instead, start with something along the lines of Jordan's Falcon unmanned turret.  Stick the 40 CTA on the right (or left) side, with pivot point near the back -- think Gepard but with a single gun.  Add splinter armor to protect the breach area and call it good.  That's not to suggest this is plug-and-play, obviously that's a major redesign, but you get the idea.

The only downside to this is that since the pivot point is further back, it can't depress as much as the main gun so if you're on a hill that requires maximum depression to bring the gun on target then you'll just have to rely on main gun or coax.

 

Maybe I'm thinking like a just throw more resources at it American, but wouldn't it be better to split up the firepower? MBT with 130/140mm, 12.7 RWS, possibly 12.7 coax. "Calvary Fighting Vehicle" with AC and ATGMs. 2-1 ratio tanks to CFVs.

the problem of preserving ammo remains.

RovingPedant said:

There's always a bit of an issue with mounting a CT40 coaxially with anything else is that the feed and eject take up the space immediately adjacent to the gun along the elevating axis, which does rather compromise the ability to make a compact turret.

Don't take my "AC in coax" mounting to literal. Not like a coax MG.
The 40 mm Bofors in the Strv2000 would have been coax but it has an independent craddle for higher elevation and it has quite some distance from the main gun.

If the AC is mounted to the left of the main gun feed from the right and eject to the left. For example.
Furthermore it doesn't have to be the 40CTA gun that is allready exisiting. From my point of view its mostly the very compact ammo that is intresting for this application.
It could by any AC that is concidered to do the job. IMHO the power level of 40 mm (CTA or L70) currently offers future proof power. The rounds also have a good HE payload. But L70 is undesirable because of the size and shape of the ammo. Also the feeding method of the existing guns is less then ideal.

RovingPedant said:

Given the fairly short range of gun-based systems it would seem to me to be advantageous to aim for greater numbers of basic systems than fewer exquisite systems.

Well missile based systems offer more range but inside their effective range gun based systems are extremly effective and flexible.
While I agree that a two system approach seems to offer the best coverage, flexibility and redundance it seems unlikely that any modern military is willing to pay for this. The German Army used to operate such a sollution. The Gepard and Roland combination. But for this they fielded more than 400 Gepards and and ~150 Rolands on Marder chassis. The trend seems to be gun and missiles combined on one vehicle. Of which much fewer are pruchased.

RovingPedant said:

In terms of weapons, are you thinking higher rates of fire, higher calibre or both, when compared to IFV weapons?

An SPAA gun should have a high ROF. Caliber wise for SPAA i would go at least for 35 mm.
If the IFV of the same army uses the same or different gun or caliber really depends. 35 mm and 40 mm are great for IFVs. As is 50 mm Supershot. But of course a turret or RWS for a 30 mm is smaller and cheaper... my guess is it would come down to a decision by bean counter.