Challenger 3 ordered

[UKRaider]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-to-possess-most-lethal-tank-in-europe

[Trackpin]

Just the one, then.

No doubt to be delivered late,  and over budget, AND probably rendered obsolete by roaming swarms of anti-tank UAVs.

Hopefully the UAVs are ours, not OPFOR.  🙃 

 

[Gibsonm]

Enough for 2 x Regts (Battalions for our US friends).

[Grenny]

1 hour ago, Trackpin said:

Just the one, then.

No doubt to be delivered late,  and over budget, AND probably rendered obsolete by roaming swarms of anti-tank UAVs.

Hopefully the UAVs are ours, not OPFOR.  🙃 

 

Oh dear...new systems pop up and the "tanks obsolete" meme follows....

Why do people always forget that an army is a "system of systems".

[MO MO]

[DK-DDAM]

should proberly have been in the off-topic section though

[Marko]

Guess what's going on the the SB wish list at some point.

A CR-3 with a 120mm gun smoothbore, better mobility etc.

 

I wonder if its possible for the Esim team just add a 120mm smoothbore on to the current model.

Also make the model a little more powerful (IE) better mobility slightly faster

With all the to the fire control changes ballistics and so forth doubt it would be a easy task though.

Not suggesting you do,  just wondering could it be done or would you need to make a new model from scratch

 

 

[dejawolf]

3 hours ago, Marko said:

Guess what's going on the the SB wish list at some point.

A CR-3 with a 120mm gun smoothbore, better mobility etc.

 

I wonder if its possible for the Esim team just add a 120mm smoothbore on to the current model.

Also make the model a little more powerful (IE) better mobility slightly faster

With all the to the fire control changes ballistics and so forth doubt it would be a easy task though.

Not suggesting you do,  just wondering could it be done or would you need to make a new model from scratch

 

 

 

it would mean a change to the ammunition layout as well, RH 120 rounds are longer and would not fit in the current challenger ammunition compartments. 

[Trackpin]

Ouch Grenny!

 

I had hoped to stimulate some polite discussion about the tactics required to negate the now ubiquitous use of UAVs in undermining the value of local air-supremacy. The conflicts in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh appear to have become a proving ground for persistent UAV ISR, Stand-Off Attack, and BDA. This not a "meme" about obsolete tanks, it is a fact.  Hiding behind "system of systems" '90s sales waffle is unhelpful.

 

Certainly it is beyond the scope of current  SB Pro to model this threat. However the timing of the announcement, when all eyes are looking at the UK's first CVG deployment for many years, slightly smacks of throwing the the Generals a bone from the Admirals' lunch.

 

I stand by my CR-3 prediction: Too few. Too late. Too expensive. Hence cannon-fodder for the next Strategic Review.

Very happy to take this Off-Topic, if anyone wants to suggest ways of modelling the UAV threat in SB, either by scripting unlimited automatic airstrikes on UAV detected armour, or by arming the UAVs themselves. Countermeasures might include AAA, ManPAD, or ? jamming/directed energy systems.

 

An Israeli helicopter last week shot down an ? Iranian UAV. Entirely kinetic, no black magic. How about scripting that as a starting point?

 

cheers

Trackpin

 

[Gibsonm]

This is starting to travel "off topic" but currently the UAS only works if a person is occupying it, so there isn't an option for an AI controlled one detecting / engaging targets.

[Ssnake]

Future versions of Steel Beasts will reflect these emerging threats.

[Grenny]

On 5/9/2021 at 1:58 AM, Trackpin said:

Ouch Grenny!

 

I had hoped to stimulate some polite discussion about the tactics required to negate the now ubiquitous use of UAVs in undermining the value of local air-supremacy. The conflicts in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh appear to have become a proving ground for persistent UAV ISR, Stand-Off Attack, and BDA. This not a "meme" about obsolete tanks, it is a fact.  Hiding behind "system of systems" '90s sales waffle is unhelpful.

 

Certainly it is beyond the scope of current  SB Pro to model this threat. However the timing of the announcement, when all eyes are looking at the UK's first CVG deployment for many years, slightly smacks of throwing the the Generals a bone from the Admirals' lunch.

 

I stand by my CR-3 prediction: Too few. Too late. Too expensive. Hence cannon-fodder for the next Strategic Review.

Very happy to take this Off-Topic, if anyone wants to suggest ways of modelling the UAV threat in SB, either by scripting unlimited automatic airstrikes on UAV detected armour, or by arming the UAVs themselves. Countermeasures might include AAA, ManPAD, or ? jamming/directed energy systems.

 

An Israeli helicopter last week shot down an ? Iranian UAV. Entirely kinetic, no black magic. How about scripting that as a starting point?

 

cheers

Trackpin

 

 

If you aim for a polite discussion, why put out twitter worthy meme stuff that ignores large parts of reality?

 

The threat of UAV makes enhanced systems for (close) air defence and electronic warefare neccessary. You still need something able to manouvre under fire and provide direct fires....so: "tank obsolete" is just that...a meme that ignores army setups. You know...that why one uses "combined arms" and noone is using "tanks only" 😉

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Grenny

[Trackpin]

Mark, as always, on target.

 

The systems are not yet fully autonomous. But that is just a firmware update, right? Because deploying munitions that will indiscriminately attack ANY vehicular target would be in breach of the Oslo/Wellington declarations, yes?  Oops! The major players ( US, China, Russia) never signed up that piece of paper. The UK did. So having, or claiming to have a man in the loop, is enough to sidestep this legal impediment anyway.

 

This problem is not going to be wished away. Cheap, semi-autonomous, or fully-autonomous, loitering munitions will require a great deal of detection, identification and suppression. They are cheap, already available and proven. Picture a minefield floating 500m over your head, like little Red Bull cans. Except each can is a shaped charge ( OK Skeet warhead proportions are more accurate), looking for anything rectangular, warm, and moving to kill. So now looking UP as well as OUT, is essential. Or monitoring some spanky new counter-measure system that cost considerably more than your CR-3 tank to develop. However, as your personal well-being depends on SA, you stay un-buttoned,  just to be sure. Because that area-jamming "system (of systems)" operated by some whiskerless youth 100km to your rear, has proved patchy at best in urban settings. Didn't the devs get the memo about retaking the town? SNAFU

 

Grenny, when confronted by a barrage of inaccurate claims (this forum is not Twitter), mis-quotes ( I wrote "probably rendered obsolete") ,  and endless typos (Christ! I have not got time to list them), I will do what most sensible folk do and button up. And wait.

 

I defer to Nils, diplomatically brief, and to the point, "Future versions of Steel Beasts will reflect these emerging threats".

 

Thank you, Sir

 

Trackpin, out.

 

[Gibsonm]

Trackpin,

 

No I meant you can't do this in SB yet, since UAS without a person playing them cannot spot / target things. Therefore you can't have a single player mission with a person facing a SB AI controlled UAS force.

 

This is potentially where Nils's post comes in that in a future version of SB perhaps UAS / Micro UAS maybe controllable by the SB AI / Scripted, or employ some other solution, to reflect this emerging threat.

[Trackpin]

Mark. Thanks for the clarification. So taking the AI script from another units sensors, eg an attack helo, and repurposing the kinetic response, eg an off-map arty call to bring down fire on the target, is getting too creative with the current SP tools?

Looks like this is a hot topic on a slow news day! CNN today: 

 

[Gibsonm]

Well an Atk Helo can't call for fire either but it can spot.

 

Maybe you could cover a map with 200m x 200m scripted artillery missions (25 per grid square) and set them up along the lines of "fire into box X if a unit is spotted".

 

Then you could get the helo to overfly and as it spots things the missions would be called.

 

Lots of work for not much return I suspect, esp. if the unit is moving.

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Gibsonm

[Major duck]

12 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Trackpin,

 

No I meant you can't do this in SB yet, since UAS without a person playing them cannot spot / target things. Therefore you can't have a single player mission with a person facing a SB AI controlled UAS force.

 

This is potentially where Nils's post comes in that in a future version of SB perhaps UAS / Micro UAS maybe controllable by the SB AI / Scripted, or employ some other solution, to reflect this emerging threat.

It is all ready in the wishlist

 

MD

 

[Grenny]

21 hours ago, Trackpin said:

Mark, as always, on target.

 

The systems are not yet fully autonomous. But that is just a firmware update, right? Because deploying munitions that will indiscriminately attack ANY vehicular target would be in breach of the Oslo/Wellington declarations, yes?  Oops! The major players ( US, China, Russia) never signed up that piece of paper. The UK did. So having, or claiming to have a man in the loop, is enough to sidestep this legal impediment anyway.

 

This problem is not going to be wished away. Cheap, semi-autonomous, or fully-autonomous, loitering munitions will require a great deal of detection, identification and suppression. They are cheap, already available and proven. Picture a minefield floating 500m over your head, like little Red Bull cans. Except each can is a shaped charge ( OK Skeet warhead proportions are more accurate), looking for anything rectangular, warm, and moving to kill. So now looking UP as well as OUT, is essential. Or monitoring some spanky new counter-measure system that cost considerably more than your CR-3 tank to develop. However, as your personal well-being depends on SA, you stay un-buttoned,  just to be sure. Because that area-jamming "system (of systems)" operated by some whiskerless youth 100km to your rear, has proved patchy at best in urban settings. Didn't the devs get the memo about retaking the town? SNAFU

 

Grenny, when confronted by a barrage of inaccurate claims (this forum is not Twitter), mis-quotes ( I wrote "probably rendered obsolete") ,  and endless typos (Christ! I have not got time to list them), I will do what most sensible folk do and button up. And wait.

 

I defer to Nils, diplomatically brief, and to the point, "Future versions of Steel Beasts will reflect these emerging threats".

 

Thank you, Sir

 

Trackpin, out.

 

So you are not interessted in a  polite discussion, very well.

 

Do you think putting out more dumb meme material like this " Because that area-jamming "system (of systems)" operated by some whiskerless youth 100km to your rear," will help your point in any way?

 

 

"Picture a minefield floating 500m over your head, like little Red Bull cans. "

Yeah sure, 500m up, undected and powered by magic limites batteries.... lol

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Grenny

[Ssnake]

There's truth in both views. We can't easily dismiss the threat potential of loitering munitions and, especially, mass-produced and autonomously operating flying killbots. At the same time multiple vectors for defense against UAVs are possible - be they kinetic, electronic warfare, softkill systems, or attacks through the cyber domain (in case of autonomous, network-centric systems).

Some light reading:

https://www.japcc.org/portfolio/a-comprehensive-approach-to-countering-unmanned-aircraft-systems/

[Rad]

 

[Hedgehog]

On 5/10/2021 at 1:04 AM, Gibsonm said:

Well an Atk Helo can't call for fire either but it can spot.

 

Maybe you could cover a map with 200m x 200m scripted artillery missions (25 per grid square) and set them up along the lines of "fire into box X if a unit is spotted".

 

Then you could get the helo to overfly and as it spots things the missions would be called.

 

Lots of work for not much return I suspect, esp. if the unit is moving.

 

And it only works once per scripted Arty box (unless you script more, where do you stop? 2? 3?)