AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Do you think the public would care where a new BA MBT is built? I don't believe they would bat an eyelid other than give a sigh of relief that the BA would have minimal involvement.
Dunno about you, I’d be extremely proud if we were to build the next generation of British MBTs, especially if we then got world wide sales.
It pisses me off that we produced the best tank guns in the world and now we’re buying a Jerry gun!
 

JCC

LE
Dunno about you, I’d be extremely proud if we were to build the next generation of British MBTs, especially if we then got world wide sales.
It pisses me off that we produced the best tank guns in the world and now we’re buying a Jerry gun!

I'd also be extremely proud if we had a functional army but we don't.

Until a lot of other things are thought through and addressed first I would let them neither specify, design nor build a garden shed.
 
Fielded what?
"Rangers", Light Inf, cyber connected battlefield and drones, a.k.a. "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA) . . . all at the expense, instead of, conventional Armd formations.

See @terminal's post #3867.
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
You'll never be able to compete for exports against the US, Russia, China, ROK, Germany, France nor anyone else. Numbers lower prices.
And add to that the Labour Party don’t like military exports (or at least the buyers of such kit), so if they get in, your export market has the potential to be cut off.
 
Except for a main gun with no secure supply of ammo (being rectified with CR3)

It is usually the integration/project management where more project become undone
Its been covered on here multiple times before that the charge bins protect the ammunition fine?
 
And add to that the Labour Party don’t like military exports (or at least the buyers of such kit), so if they get in, your export market has the potential to be cut off.
That might depend on which version of the Labour Party ?!
 
The vast majority of the time is working out what works and what is needed. It's got nothing to do with red tape. Sorting out what the tank is going to look like normally takes a hell of a lot longer than the CAD and build part of the project.
Snipped.

Sorting out what something is going to look like is one area where where product development times have been slashed.

Today’s object management systems allow concurrent activity in design in a way that was simply not possible in the days when everything was on paper. Not just in preparing drawings, but also in testing and evaluation, much of which is now done in the virtual environment.

Also, rapid prototyping and iterative machining makes a huge difference to product development times.

You only have to look at the motor industry; 20 years ago, product development cycles were in the 5-10 year range. Now, manufacturers can develop and productionise a car in a couple of years.

It’s worth noting that the UK has only developed one AFV in the digital age; Terrier. It’s procurement program was about 1/3rd of that for its predecessor, the CET.
 
It’s worth noting that the UK has only developed one AFV in the digital age; Terrier. It’s procurement program was about 1/3rd of that for its predecessor, the CET.
Agreed but Terrier was beset by problems and delivered around 2-3 years late if my memory serves me correctly. I remember a few of the trials on RETA back in 2007/8 ish and they were beset by problems.
 
The big thing about common chassis is that with current automotives you’ve got to choose between engine front or engine back, or make it reversible.
Engine front suits any troop carriers, SPGs and load carriers while engine rear suits fighting vehicles so a common chassis will necessarily result in compromises.

I think commonality is best applied to the components rather than the arrangement. Power pack, drive train, sensors, computers, batteries, armour etc are lego blocks that can be assembled in a way that best suits the role.

I think that the next MBT will be electric drive. Maybe diesel/electric, but still electric drive. Simply because, as I've been told by SME's, we're one of the world leaders in field (see comments about reshoring), and the distributed electric motors provides far too many opportunities to the vehicle designer. The technology has matured enough for it to be viable.
Snipped.

Sorting out what something is going to look like is one area where where product development times have been slashed.

Today’s object management systems allow concurrent activity in design in a way that was simply not possible in the days when everything was on paper. Not just in preparing drawings, but also in testing and evaluation, much of which is now done in the virtual environment.

Also, rapid prototyping and iterative machining makes a huge difference to product development times.

You only have to look at the motor industry; 20 years ago, product development cycles were in the 5-10 year range. Now, manufacturers can develop and productionise a car in a couple of years.

It’s worth noting that the UK has only developed one AFV in the digital age; Terrier. It’s procurement program was about 1/3rd of that for its predecessor, the CET.

I still remain dubious, but even if it'll only take, say 10-15 years (Ie the normal development time range) We still need to be cracking on now!
 

Majorpain

War Hero
The T15 is the IFV, but uses the same chassis as T14, except it's backwards.
Which causes a problem, because then you have the heavy 120mm stopping armour right at the front AND the engine. Look closely at every photo of T15 and you can see its a little front heavy, I would not be surprised if they have had to reduce the frontal protection a bit to keep the balance manageable.

1200px-4mayrehearsal_02.jpg
 
I think that the next MBT will be electric drive. Maybe diesel/electric, but still electric drive. Simply because, as I've been told by SME's, we're one of the world leaders in field (see comments about reshoring), and the distributed electric motors provides far too many opportunities to the vehicle designer. The technology has matured enough for it to be viable.
I’m inclined to agree, not least because that’s where civilian automotives are going. The real challenge will be the energy transport to the vehicles. That said, on a series hybrid the ability to plug in would cover a decent proportion of vehicle use when not on operations.

You’re still likely to see the components in different places for different vehicles though.
I still remain dubious, but even if it'll only take, say 10-15 years (Ie the normal development time range) We still need to be cracking on now!
Quick, cheap and good. The best you may aspire to is picking two.
So starting soon with something a bit more than power-point would seem sensible.
 

JCC

LE
I’m inclined to agree, not least because that’s where civilian automotives are going. The real challenge will be the energy transport to the vehicles. That said, on a series hybrid the ability to plug in would cover a decent proportion of vehicle use when not on operations.

You’re still likely to see the components in different places for different vehicles though.

Quick, cheap and good. The best you may aspire to is picking two.
So starting soon with something a bit more than power-point would seem sensible.
We certainly should be using IFV/MBT R&D to rebuild skills even if we are to, sensibly, stick to buying in for our current needs.
 
They well may be but the issue is that the 120mm rifled ammo isn’t made anymore
Sorry I thought you were talking about ammo storage protection not production!
 
Top