Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British army (maybe) getting a new MBT?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freyr
    replied
    BAE and Rheinmetall launch combat vehicle JV


    BAE Systems and German partner Rheinmetall launched a combat vehicles joint venture on Monday with the aim of capitalising on what the industry hopes will be a period of much-needed investment in the sector.

    The joint venture, called Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land, will be one of Europe’s largest military vehicle groups.

    Under the terms of the agreement, first announced in January, BAE has sold a 55 per cent stake to its German counterpart for £28.6m, a move it said would preserve some 450 jobs as well as vital engineering capabilities in Britain.

    Speaking at the venture’s launch at its headquarters in Telford in the West Midlands, Penny Mordaunt, Britain’s defence secretary, said it was a “clear vote of confidence in the UK’s defence industry as a world-leader in designing, supplying and supporting military vehicles”.

    The combined company will initially design and manufacture vehicles primarily for the UK, including the new Military Infantry Vehicle (MIV) Boxer for the British Army and hope to be successful in a competition to upgrade the Challenger tank. BAE and Rheinmetall were originally competing against each other for the Challenger upgrade contract.

    Peter Hardisty, formerly of Rheinmetall UK who has taken over as managing director of the new company, said it was “by no means a shoo-in” to win the contract. Under its proposal, most of the work would be done in the UK but the upgraded tank would have a German smoothbore cannon, he said.

    A range of programmes to update Britain’s combat armoured capability are under way after years of under-investment. Ms Mordaunt last month said the UK had fallen behind its allies in key armoured combat vehicle capabilities.

    “The future may look very different in years to come, but meantime, while armour is relevant it must be capable, and we must be competitive. We have not been,” said Ms Mourdaunt.

    “Challenger 2 has been in service without a major upgrade since 1998. During this time the US, Germany and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants with a sixth pending,” she said.

    “Warrior [the Army’s infantry fighting vehicle] is even more obsolete, and is 20 years older than those operated by our key allies,” Ms Mordaunt added.

    “There has been next to no drive from the Army to invest in anything not related to Afghanistan,” said Francis Tusa, editor of monthly newsletter Defence Analysis.

    “Neither the MoD nor the services put any money into the armoured vehicle sector . . . The land sector was regarded more as a commercial sector where you can just go and buy kit,” he added.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Also, if you know anything about Soviet doctrine, the Iraqis couldn't even do that right. The first thing a Soviet General would tell you is to find the enemy. Sitting around waiting for the Americans to come to you was as stupid as you can get.
    Stationary targets on a desert plain does seem completely dumb. Especially with the firing range on an M! Abrams. They don't seem to have learned much from the Iran/Iraq war

    We would have the same outcome as the Iraq War a few years down the road. The Iraqis were not ready for democratic rule
    I agree with you completely on the Democracy point... As we know from history though. The Republican guard then went on to crush the uprising in the south of Iraq and the North Causing a humanitarian crisis on the border with Turkey and genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the south. Which then resulted in the No fly zones. I think however awkward within the UN mandate, More should have been done to downgrade the Iraqi security infrastructure of which the Republican guard was a major component. But you know what they say about hindsight...
    Last edited by Freyr; 01 Jul 19,, 18:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Freyr View Post
    Just managed to watch that the whole way through..Thanks!

    At the time it occurred to me that it must have been splendid target practice for the Americans. An army with modern weaponry trained to fight the Soviets pitted against patriotic loons in mobile trash cans with insufficient modern tech....if the Iraqi's had bought leopards or Challengers with full kit the battle would have lasted longer and resulted in considerably more Allied/American Casualties. Thankfully that didn't happen !
    The point here is that the Iraqis could not exploit the technology like the Americans/Western allies did. We litterally gave command to Sergeants and Corporals to make decisions that affected outcomes of the battle. The Iraqis would never allow a non-commissioned member to make those kind of decisions which would make a lot of LEO IIs and CHALLY's technological advantages useless.

    Also, if you know anything about Soviet doctrine, the Iraqis couldn't even do that right. The first thing a Soviet General would tell you is to find the enemy. Sitting around waiting for the Americans to come to you was as stupid as you can get.

    Originally posted by Freyr View Post
    ...Unfortunately due to the UN mandate and an unwillingness to continue. The Iraqi Republican guard was left largely intact, not good!
    We would have the same outcome as the Iraq War a few years down the road. The Iraqis were not ready for democratic rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    They're Brits, GS. They don't know how to grill.
    My mum is very good at grilling thanks..nobody grills Sardines or monkfish like mum ;-)
    Last edited by Freyr; 01 Jul 19,, 18:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    More often than not, it's the frontal lobe that's the problem.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident

    However, this example shows what happens when the tech does work.

    Just managed to watch that the whole way through..Thanks!

    At the time it occurred to me that it must have been splendid target practice for the Americans. An army with modern weaponry trained to fight the Soviets pitted against patriotic loons in mobile trash cans with insufficient modern tech....if the Iraqi's had bought leopards or Challengers with full kit the battle would have lasted longer and resulted in considerably more Allied/American Casualties. Thankfully that didn't happen !...Unfortunately due to the UN mandate and an unwillingness to continue. The Iraqi Republican guard was left largely intact, not good!

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Also I'm seeing the cutdown 55gal drum on the back and all I can think of is grilling steaks
    They're Brits, GS. They don't know how to grill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Treadheads. I'm guessing the number of info screens that causes confusion, loss of SA would be two (I'm being generous)



    As John Allen once told us, when he was my battalion Commander, "You have to know when to turn the tech off and fight the battle."

    Also I'm seeing the cutdown 55gal drum on the back and all I can think of is grilling steaks
    This is a prime Gunny response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I am leery of 2 things....

    1. The multiple camera views. Studies in the C3I realm in the US have shown that you get to a point of information overload & screen fixation. A tank is not a fighter. Too much going on can cause issues. I could see some but I think they have too many views. The beauty of Blue Force Tracker was it gave SA without information overload. Perhaps a scout system would find all of this useful but not an MBT.
    Treadheads. I'm guessing the number of info screens that causes confusion, loss of SA would be two (I'm being generous)

    Also, every Soldier a helmet cam...again, too much info flowing at a commander.
    As John Allen once told us, when he was my battalion Commander, "You have to know when to turn the tech off and fight the battle."

    Also I'm seeing the cutdown 55gal drum on the back and all I can think of is grilling steaks

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    I can certainly see the benefits of a preinstalled camera on the gun barrel. But too many screens can be counter productive. 'Just Enough' info would be nice...

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    All those cameras and screens. Wouldn't a drone be easier, cheaper, and more effective? Concur on the blade. Zipperheads ain't engineers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    I am leery of 2 things....

    1. The multiple camera views. Studies in the C3I realm in the US have shown that you get to a point of information overload & screen fixation. A tank is not a fighter. Too much going on can cause issues. I could see some but I think they have too many views. The beauty of Blue Force Tracker was it gave SA without information overload. Perhaps a scout system would find all of this useful but not an MBT.

    2. I would prefer a monocular for the helmet mounted system. Always want to have one eye unemcumbered, espcially in daylight. Also, every Soldier a helmet cam...again, too much info flowing at a commander.

    I know all are in the early days but I would love to see further refinement.

    A side note: The blade on the tank? You better train th ehell out of that crew and teach them properly what they can and cannot do. Cause if you don't you'll be changing transmissions & final drives a whole bunch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    Wouldn't that barrel camera get thrown out the moment the gun fired?
    ...Well the Danes used a sports camera...which on the new ones has a stabilisation mode, so certainly the extreme vibration can be accommodated...But yes in close quarter urban warfare I can see issues with the fit, but that can be altered. I can certainly see the thrust of the idea, its just seeing it work practically

    And those goggles seem heavy...[/QUOTE]Yeh ..bit like having nearly two heads ..lol..but again new tech is always initially ridiculous in practical terms..only time can cure these flaws

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Freyr View Post
    Wouldn't that barrel camera get thrown out the moment the gun fired?...

    And those goggles seem heavy...

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    As long as you haven't said, "I do," you're still good.
    Yeh been there, I'd rather fish...than go back to that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X