|
CASR
|
-
Canadian
Defence Policy,
Foreign
Policy,
& Canada-US
Relations
- |
|
In Detail
——
Alternatives
to the Mobile
Gun System?
—— |
|
|
Defence Technology — March 2004
Does Canada have alternatives to the Mobile Gun System?
Tom Rea considers the importance of compact
components and the use of mass-efficient armour in the design of modern Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Part 5 – “... we have seen the future ...” Advances in Armour
Technology
The armour technologies needed to improve the mass-efficiency of our AFV’s protection already exist. These
new armour types could drive weight down to less than 40% of the equivalent in conventional steel armour.
Titanium has 45% of the weight/strength of steel, and developed titanium alloys (eg: Ti6Al4V) provide the same
level of protection as does steel armour but at 58% percent of the weight.
There have also been great advances in non-metallic armours. Kevlar, Spectra, Zylon, and similar
fibres – as well as some ceramic armours – have three times the ballistic efficiency of steel plate.
Laminations of such non-metallic armours would complement titanium armour. Steel is still used for armour
primarily because it is relatively cheap compared to most alternatives. However, achieving an equivalent level of
protection with steel armour requires that vehicle to be much larger. Since the size increase makes steel-armoured
AFVs far more expensive to build, operate, and deploy, this represents a false economy. Such AFVs are no
cheaper at all. [1]
Metal fibre-reinforced ceramic armours could offer even greater improvements in mass-efficiency over steel
armour – potentially offering twice the protection that could be provided by armour combining ceramics,
titanium, and fibres. ‘Add-on’ armours – explosive, electrical, and magnetic
reactive/absorptive armours – could augment protection further. By using these advanced armour types,
achieving a frontal armour equivalent to 40" – or more – of steel armour is now within reach.
Although armour considerations should dominate the early stage of design, there are other factors involved.
Below, a table summarizes (along with armour weights) the approximate weights of the major systems required for
our alternative MGS.
System/
Component |
|
20 lb[2]
Armour |
15 lb[2]
Armour |
10 lb[2]
Armour |
Armour Wt. |
[See: Page
4] |
20,040 lbs |
15,031 lbs |
15,031 lbs |
Powerpack |
225-250 bhp |
1,250 lbs |
1,250 lbs |
1,250 lbs |
Drivetrain |
10 wheels |
1,250 lbs |
1,250 lbs |
1,250 lbs |
Main Gun |
155mm/L31 |
4,500 lbs |
4,500 lbs |
4,500 lbs |
Combat Load |
30 Rds/250L |
3,000 lbs |
3,000 lbs |
3,000 lbs |
Total Weight |
|
30,040 lbs |
25,031 lbs |
25,031 lbs |
[1] There are other economies to the more mass-efficient armours. Unlike steel, which is prone to to
corrosion, these new armours require very little maintenance.
[2] Thickness of armour equivalent to ballistic protection of 40.8 lb. steel armour.
< Part 4 — “... tread a measure
...” the Advantages of Differential Steering
> Part 6 — Visualizing How Design
Considerations Might Shape an AFV
|
|
|