Carro de Combate Lince

Although the Lince might resemble a Soviet tank in the low profile and low weight, it's prohibitely expensive - I haven't really figured it out yet, but well over $14 million per tank. I wish there was a better figure on the NLOS-C, but the only figure is $27 million a piece (only 18 to be produced for now) - and the Lince is beyond prototype stage (although the pilot tanks may have cost that much) and is being produced in fairly large quantities. The advantage of the T-72 was that it was cheap (just over a million a piece - similar to the price of the Bradley), and the Lince doesn't fulfill that requirement to accomplish 'tank spam'. MAD IIs will remain in service with the reserves just for that reason. This isn't as expensive as Juumanistra's Kyton ($25+ million each), but the Kyton had severe run-off costs and development set backs and it really resembles the MBT-70 project (only, it wasn't canceled).

Back to the original point ... I don't think the Lince is the right tank to field in large numbers in 'cheap quantities'. It's like the Nakíl for those who want to field it in large numbers; large quantities with an expensive price tag (although, the larger the order the less per tank).

That's basically what Spain planned to do with the M60A3TTS, as units were slowly received the Leopard 2E (production should actually end in a number of months). So, I think it's a good idea - especially the procurement of the Lince part.

Alternatively, you can award a contract to Sistemas Terrestres Segovia to present you a modification kit to the MAD.V to bring it to Lince standards. Besides, STS could make the modification to increase commonality between parts.

Ideally, most of the production would take place in Doomingsland. Some of the special parts would be manufactured in Castilla, but I'd say that over 80% of the tank should be produced by Doomani factories. We could also reduce price per tank (it be more of a reduction of the total price, and so spread throughout the tanks it might not be that big of a reduction) if a number of factories were sold to STS.

Well, more accurately it should just be Dyneema-matrix composite - the majority of the material is still Dyneema. I'll change the write-up to reflect this ... there were some other minor changes I made, but I forgot them. Blast!

No relation - I just used the Nakíl as a reference quite a bit because I know it better than any other tank (given that I wrote it), and because I thought it would be best to compare the Lince with it given the Nakíl's export success. I figure that if I market the Lince E as a Nakíl killer it might sell more, too - but that's the Lince E. Whether or not it's a Nakíl killer doesn't matter to me. To be honest, some of the options people choose will probably not make a good tank - but the only thing that interests STS is the money, so we´ll say what we can.

From an OOC point of view, we receive the business in open arms. From an IC point of view, although you're not a strategic adversary (we have none, and Sumer probably doesn't even know the politics of Castilla - a minor, unknown nation that used to be a third-world country) but in regards to tanks you are an export adversary. STS is wary of selling technology to foreign tank producers, so either you'll have to choose from the Lince E options (which isn't necessarilly bad - you would probably make extremely good choices, and the technology exported won't be bad ... it just won't be the same as that on the original Lince) or something will have to be worked out.

However, buying the export version might not be a bad idea. The Lince E program will be open for foreign equipment. Meaning, Juumanistran transmissions might be an option, or Mekugian optronics, et cetera. Meaning, it's a cheaper method of making the Lince E a more Sumerian tank (Sumerian engine, Sumerian transmission, et cetera) - you'd just choose what you want and add in the rest.

But, we have a long time to figure out any details should you decide that the Lince might be a good tank for your training units.

Well, once you have an idea on how many you plan to produce just let me know and we'll work something out. Given that you were a project partner for the Advanced Anti-Tank Vehicle (AATV), STS could award 100% indigenous production to one of your defense contractors. STS would, of course, be looking for compensation beyond money, such as the purchase of one of your defense companies and its factories - but this isn't strictly a requirement and is completely up to you. A deal would be reached irrelevant of STS' expansion ambitions.

What range is point-blank range? The penetration might be high, and it's based largely on the penetration of current 30mm APFSDS (a little bit more than 150mm). I wanted to know the penetration on AP ammunition used by the F2 20mm autocannon (mounted on French AMX-30s), but I couldn't find any. Beyond the extension of the rod, a lot of the penetration also relies on the use of a jacketed penetrator - the paper is at home and I probably wouldn't be able to give you any specific information until I came back from my Christmas vacation, unfortunately. 170mm, admittedly, is not based on hard-numbers, but I'll withhold from changing it until I can present you the information I based that figure off of. If anything, I can reduce it to 150mm - although the hope was to defeat ICVs from the frontal profile (so, it would have to be superior to a 30mm APFSDS).

Statblock added, although I didn't add in armor values. I was sort of lazy and I didn't want to figure out the total length of my ERA, although that was the least of it. I don't want to figure out the depth of the armor on the turret.

How many years did you spend typing that?

A week or so.

I do my write-ups on the spot, within two hours. No wonder everyone hates my designs...

With some designs you can do that... but if you really want a top-notch design that's well thought out and create you're going to need more time. Mac may have spent a week writing up the Lince, but he had it in his head for months.

No offense, Jon, but this is a bit too radical for my tastes, largely due to the unmanned turret.

Sure it can work, and I have next to no doubt that this design will do you in good (if expensive) stead, I'm just too old fashioned to use a design without a turret crew (yet).

That's what I thought too, but it's the only way I could think of to realistically increase armor protection and at the same reduce weight considerably (reducing surface area as much as possible). I came across the German EGS, but that's specifically a chassis design and the only way I could think of to maximize the line of depth in the turret was to decrease surface area and increase armor thickness and then use do what the Israelies do with the Merkava or what the Germans with the Leopard 2A5.

It has disadvantages, which are stated in the write-up. Electronics insofar can't replace the human eye.

The good old mark 1 type 0 is still the best sensor out there. It is the one sensor that can't be electronically jammed no matter how hard the other guy tries to. (that's the human eyeball, for those that don't know)

So you are using UHMWPE matrix reinforced with metal wires? I'm a bit unsure how practical is that, since Dyneema holds tension better than metals. And, in any case, that would be metal-reinforced plastic, not MMC.

You would need a significantly longer round for that. 20x200 maybe.
In general penetration doesn't exceed the round length significantly even at tank LRP velocities, and here we deal with 1300m/s. Jacketed penetrators, cruciform penetrators, similar things just fix the real-life issues not accounted for by the theoretical model, get closer to the its results, but not above.
Point blank range means I just took the muzzle velocity.

I would also personally try to avoid the uncertain and expensive technologies like telescopic LRP where they aren't absolutely necessary. Auxiliary autocannon ammunition, I think, is one such place. Since it's a very high-energy gun, ammo will have to be enlarged for propellant anyway.

It's also that 20mm is a far smaller round than 30mm. Four times smaller, in fact. Exceeding the perforation of a 30mm round in a 20mm cannon is like exceeding the performance of 120mm in 80mm... which brings us to the debate about Lince, but with sides flipped now.

//I'm on the large-caliber sides because performance is much more flexible with singles than with autos - i.e. it's much easier to make a single-fire round exceed the performance of a heavier one than the same with automatics.



BTW, how well does ETC work with telescopic rounds? I mean, normally the ignition channel is in the center - where is it with telescopic ammo?

Mac, you have way too much time on your hands.

Sure it can, laser blinders or Ye Old Fashioned Bright Light. Of course, camouflage, while not electronic, also can deceive the human eye.

Uh, no? When did I say that? I'll have to go into detail later ...

I'm a bit unsure how practical is that, since Dyneema holds tension better than metals. And, in any case, that would be metal-reinforced plastic, not MMC.

I don't think so, but that's not impossible - that's not 'significantly' longer either. I think I can increase muzzle energy though, because I was using velocity based on a 20mm APC round and this is a 20mm APFSDS (8mm diameter). But, I'll have to think about it at home.

I don't know what you are trying to say by 'fixing real-life issues'. What real life issues are you talking about? How are these real life issues relevant to the 20mm APFSDS? I'll have to get back to you on exact information on the penetration increases with jacketed penetrators, but I'll give you hard date.

At the ranges this is supposed to work at velocity decrease won't be dramatic.

Unfortunately, it is necessary. I don't want to use the CB.54 against lightly armored targets, because I might effectively use the three ready rounds in the turret when there's no tank threat. That means that my crew will have to replace the round by hand, and that isn't exactly efficient. An autoloader that can load a new ready round would be too bulky, IMO - it would be convinient, but not convinient enough to use in this model of the Lince. Therefore, a 20mm cannon with the ability to penetrate an ICV is extremely important, although I'm thinking about increasing caliber to 25mm given that I have more information on the 25mm Bushwacker than I do on any existing 20mm gun.

The idea is similar to your 70mm gun with the same performance of an 103mm gun. The 20mm gun is heavy and designed to survive high pressures - it should probably have a higher pressure than what it alludes to in the write-up (it says it's chrome plated, which alludes to some increase in allowable pressure but not as much as it probably should). I might increase to 25mm, but 30mm would be too big. There is existing technology on a 25mm compact autocannon, so I might use that in conjunction with CTA.

Yes, but in this case available volume restricts the size of the autocannon - so, although I agree a larger caliber would be easier, this time it might not be necessarilly the right choice.

G379 isn't ETC. And, the ignition isn't in the round for the main gun, given that the round has no propellant attached to it. The ETC has to be part of the gun system (permanent plasma cartridge like triple coax injector).

Sure it can, laser blinders or Ye Old Fashioned Bright Light. Of course, camouflage, while not electronic, also can deceive the human eye.

True, but it is still good, all things considered. (and has a unbeatable price tag )

This is a pretty thick and heavy APFSDS, however - 8mm for 20mm barrel. That's like 50mm for 120mm gun.

Energy with sabots is lower than with non-saboted rounds, due to less efficient utilization at high velocities.

I.e. low stiffness of high L:D penetrators.

I mean lengthening the actual round is significantly more practical.
Telescoping LRP aren't a gain per se, they're a compromise to fit a longer rod where it would ordinary not fit. This isn't necessary where it would fit. Yes, ammunition would be longer, but making it thinner would compensate.

25mm would be an alternate less radical way.

Yes, very similar - but I was pointing this exactly because you've blown it up yourself as entirely impossible even with single rounds. With automatics things get only worse.

1300m/s with an over 100g bullet then...?