JP/5
COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
COLMMERCI
LENCE
C.
105 mm tank gun. The Study felt that the 105 mm mounting represented
the optimum solution in respect of meeting the performance requirements.
The high velocity of the 105 mm APDS rounds provided the highest
probability of hit out to the ranges specified. Since the mounting
would be manually loaded with power assistance for ramming, the
different ammunition types could be loaded as required. An added
advantage from the point of view of simplicity would be the co-location
of the digital fire control system with the gun. Since the mounting
would be based on many components currently being produced in large
numbers the unit production cost of the total system was expected to be low
and hopefully under £500K. (NOTE This figure has since been revised to £650K).
As the 105 mm gun mounting has its own fire control system on mount it
would not require any remote fire control and, indeed, it would not be
able to accept it. To exploit the full potential of any other gun (eg the
57mm), the Study recommended that a remote fire control would be required.
The Sperry SEA ARCHER (1 or 2) or the Phillips 9 LV 100 were examined and
the former recommended. Costs range from £300K-£500K fitted. (NOTE This spread
has since been revised to £195K
£500K).
d. The Weapon Study report concluded that the 105 mm gun was the preferred
option, accepting its very limited anti-aircraft role. If this mounting could
not be produced in time, and there was a high risk in the timescale, it was
considered that the 57 mm Bofor, probably with the SEA ARCHER system, was the
secondary option.
NOTE Since the Weapon Study was completed, the two options in paragraph 3d
above have been investigated further. It has been established that the cost of
the Bofors 57 mm - SEA ARCHER option is comparable with the budgetary estimated
unit production cost of the 'navalised' 105 mm L7 option. However, the latter
excludes the cost of 105 mm ammunition development, which would also be necessary.
It has been established that it is not possible to produce the 105 mm option in
the time available and, therefore, that the 57 mm option remains the only viable
alternative.
E-4
COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE