British Weapon Systems - Technical data and discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
4147

Yeah I kinda agree with you tbh. The only thing holidng back 20pdr is weird shatter issues that are only noticable on things with overlapping plates. IF they actually fix this stupid inconsistent mechanic Centurion Mk 3 is still good enough for 7.7 but it’s a shame there isn’t a clear place for things like Mk 5/2 or 7/1.

Even Cent Mk 10 at 8.0 isnt overly cutting edge especially when Sho’t Kal Alef sits at the same BR with better ammo (M728 and HEAT-FS), better turret front armour (because its a Mk 5 and Mk 8 - 10s mantlet armour is still dodgy) an extra machine gun and a more powerful engine (750BHP!). Mk 10 does have the better upper hull though and curiously in game both have the same mass of 51.8t.

4148

Yes sorry I meant to say Hellfire II.

4149

the Centurion Mk.3 is Objectively better than the FV4202

Top speed, Reverse speed, armour, Traverse speeds, armour, similar mobility, same firepower

It’s a direct downgrade, with its only redeeming factor being a Slight increase in HP/T (Centurion still feels like it accelerates better personally)

i don’t even notice “Shell Shattered” to be too much of an issue, sure it happens but when it does you have a new round through quickly, and it does fair damage, unlike the 120mm L1A2 of the Conq, where you need to wait business days to reload, and does little damage

it already is, its perfectly fine, I’d much rather take the Cent Mk.3 than the Conq, and only really the Caernarvon i’d say is outright better (better HP/T, better Hull armour, Identical turret)

Although I’ve never played it, it does not seem to be significantly inferior, it at all to the M48A1/A2C,

Never played nor really seen the Kal Alef in battles, but the Mark 10 does perfectly fine, even if it is worse, i don’t see why it should move down, though it should definitely get its mantlet fixed, and more ammunition would be welcome to deal with IS-4s and the such,

It definetly isn’t my first pick for the 8.0 Lineup for sure, Vickers Mk.1 is just better for the current state of the game, Personally much prefer the Mark 10 to the Leopard 1 at the same BR

4150

The bigger issue IMO is the 7.7-9.3 compression
You go from 20pdr Cents with APDS at 7.7, to 105 Cents with APDS at 8.0, then (Technologically) jump to APFSDS and LRFs at 8.3?! With 120mm APDS at 8.7 with the Chieftains etc to really rub salt in the wound.

Why play the 7.7 and 8.0 Cents when you don’t get SPAAGs or many support tanks, when you could play the stacked 8.3 and 8.7 line ups,

1 Like
4151

It’s not that much better.

  • Speed: 32km on the FV4202 compared to 35km on the Mk 3. 3km difference isn’t that noticeable, the slightly better hp/t on the FV4202 cancels it out. The reverse on the Centurion is definitely better though and can get you out of sticky situations.
  • Armour: That’s debatable. The FV4202 is far weaker on paper, but it’s sloped a lot better. That 51mm plate comes out to about 120mm LOS thickness compared to about 130mm LOS on the Centurion. So not a massive advantage there either. Turret armour is harder to quantify due to so many different areas but they can both be pretty trolly sometimes.
  • FCS: Centurion 3 does have better traverse, but the FV4202 has a rangefinder.

They’re pretty comparable with pros and cons to both. Centurion Mk 3 is pretty much a backup vehicle in 7.7 these days anyway.

4152

image
image1388×198 84.5 KB

Mosquito B MK. XVI confirmed in todays CM!

image
image

Im coming to enjoy nuking entire cap points at 400+mph

7 Likes
4153

isnt one of the main points of the brimstone the compatibility with hellfire platforms?

4154

It’s compatible in that it has the same physical footprint, and mechanical and electronic interfaces.
It still needs integration if you want it to fully work with e.g. the Apache’s radar and HMS. And the quote Boeing gave to the MoD for doing that kind of work was astronomical because it’s not in Boeing’s interest to do it.

2 Likes
4155

I was looking forward to zooming in and Nuking Battleships with it. But i fear there are gonna be too many missile Destroyers around now.

4156

Do I understand correctly that this document implies that the Starstreak should engage a fast-moving target at a minimum distance of around 800 meters, and that its maximum effective range is about 5 kilometers?

4157

This is preservice Starstreak where the max range was only ~5km

All shots are non maneuvering head-on targets.

4158

Isn’t it a UAI store though? So it should be basically, just what would be required for platform specific Flight Safety & Release Limitation investigations and certification.

The Software and Hardware should otherwise be “plug and play”.

4159

Even if it is, it’s not possible for it to be done by the UK as an end user with no access to those systems or rights to modify it. So it’s not possible to do without Boeing’s engineers. And they are the ones that determine how much it will cost, regardless of if it’s a “fair” price or not.

2 Likes
4160

Seems similar to the issue we are having with F-35. I’d be tempted to just jailbreak these systems, something we’ve done before if we aren’t going to get fair treatment.

1 Like
4161

With how much the UK put into F-35 and currently produces through the likes of BAE Systems, it is boarding on criminal how awkward its been to get our weapons fit to F-35.

9 Likes
4162

It’s already been confirmed that its a violation of contract and we have not been provided with the full benefits of our partnership agreement by deliberate withhold from LM and the JPO.

The treatment has indeed been completely unacceptable and honestly a real betrayal, by LM (who got access to BAE IP for F-22 and F-35), by the US Government (who through successive admins have failed to rectify the situation) and by the JPO (who our contract is with and should be the ones seeing to our fair treatement).

Even worse, some vague not even 3rd tier partner but an observer has been given priority for domestic integration, deliveries, has its own variant of the system and was allowed to make extensive airframe and software modifications so it would suit its own requirements and yet the UK has had 3 senior officials state on the record the F-35B as an airframe doesn’t even fit our requirements).

I think i’d dislike the F-35 less if the politics were even vaguely acceptable.

Unfortunately, we can’t really afford to kick up a fuss or significantly withhold purchases, as we don’t have a fallback, Tempest isn’t ready yet, and we have designed and built two £4bn assets around a singular aircraft type.

It’s a pipe dream but in my dreams we convert the carriers to CATOBAR and develop another aircraft type that we have full control over and is also just more suitable for the UK’s requirements either as part of the Tempest framework or as part of the rumoured BAE x post-FCAS partnership.

6 Likes
4163

Well, Meteor was tested recently, getting stuck with no internal A2G stores simultaneously will suck though.

F35B-Meteor-missile-a
F35B-Meteor-missile-a1508×849 99.1 KB

F-35 Stores loading chart
F-35 Stores loading chart1661×1285 871 KB

4164

Yeah… not quite. Meteor was fit checked recently keeping in mind its already a decade after we had paid Lockheed Martin to have Meteor integrated by and another decade until its slated to be integrated fully (so fireable).

Literally all that test was to do was to check that it fit in the bay which MBDA could’ve told them it did but whatever.

I’m primarily concerned with our lack of SEAD capability or standoff munitions whether internal or external, it took them that long to integrate Brimstone that we cancelled it and substituted in SPEAR 3 because that was going to be around and deployable in inventory before they had Brimstone 3 integrated… Additionally, JSM won’t fit internally so no cruise missile option either.

The S in CSG is for strike, and right now they carriers don’t have any strike capability, and that is solely down to the F-35 not living up to what was promised.

1 Like
4165

ASRAAM probably one of the easier integrations as was Paveway IV, both share alot in common with the US versions.

Meteor and SPEAR 3 however.

If it wasn’t such a capable sensor platform I’d start worrying about the purchase in general. From a weapons perspective it doesn’t offer anything more than what a Typhoon with ECRS.Mk2 couldn’t do and do better, so its really only that sensor suite and stealth thats keeping it in the still mostly worth it column.

TBH I’d place the F-35A purchase as overall better idea than the F-35B. Filling a capability gap in stealth tactical nuclear delivery while also working as a training bird for the new F-35B pilots. Still though 35B has been super disappointing.

3 Likes
4166

Drop tests were also performed.

How serious is that music though makes it seem like something important was being shown off.

Well, there are plans to acquire the F-35A for training, so some of the fleet should be able to do so. And JSM for the F-35B, is proceeding, just not internally due to the smaller bay.

Well, Many US SEAD aircraft can generate co-ordinates / bearing from a sufficiently sustained / pulsed contact and Semi-automatically Shoot back in a “Self-Protection” mode.

As far as the ones I have documentation for, this includes the; Wild Weasel F-4 variants, A-7E, F-16CJ (ASQ-213 “Rev. 7” and later) & AH-64D / RAH-66, I’d have to look more closely at others.

So It’s likely that the F-35’s retain said capability, so anything with GPS guidance could cover said shortfall to some degree, but the AGM-88 and SiAW are planned for integration on the various F-35s. And any inventory built for the Typhoon as a stop gap should help, Though I’d wonder where a revised and modernized ALARM would sit even if it’s not being pursued.

You really aren’t the only one referencing this, and there doesn’t seem to be any great option for the F-35B specifically. Theoretically if the P-JDAM were to ever be picked up again it could serve as the basis for an option but that seems unlikely.

But is mostly a remnant of being forced to use a design for what should have been four or more different aircraft. Thus needed to make concessions to achieve various goals, the fact that so many stores can’t actually fit the bays of the F-35B is likely an oversight, and to some degree an artifact of needing to intuitionally retain the Harrier’s VTOL capabilities.

The F-35C or a redesigned stealthy Harrier / Clean sheet would have been the better option. And its not as if the USMC wouldn’t have bought it (and do joint production “right” this time). and the F-35A & -C would be all the better for it.

Sure, but what was promised? All it seems to be is a baseline Stealthy Airframe at the F-16’s price point, intended to serve as the “Low” end of a High-Low mix for the F-22 / F-47.