Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The normal form is still to place it t in front of something that will protect from that backblast. Having it in a stick will be a little cheeky if it detonated whilst holding it.
Depends if it was side- or square-on on the stick.

On defensive positions, the VC had a cheeky habit of sneaking up to positions before an attack and turning Claymores around. So, at the point that things are getting lively and you need something to keep Charlie off, you press the clackers... only to compound your problems by getting a face-full of your own nasty.

The SASR solved that problem on their perimeters by mounting their Claymores at an oblique angle.
 
Depends if it was side- or square-on on the stick.

On defensive positions, the VC had a cheeky habit of sneaking up to positions before an attack and turning Claymores around. So, at the point that things are getting lively and you need something to keep Charlie off, you press the clackers... only to compound your problems by getting a face-full of your own nasty.

The SASR solved that problem on their perimeters by mounting their Claymores at an oblique angle.

I used to work for an ex-RAE officer who was famous for having had an entire minefield ‘stolen’ in Vietnam :)

I’m not sure I’d want to hold the stick under any circumstances.

Chris Moon, now famous for running multiple marathons with only one leg, also lost his right arm at the same time. The shockwave from the mine he stood on travelled up the mine probe he had in his right hand, and basically turned his hand to mush.
 
Some Huskies and Panthers too but that’s it other than SV.
All the SPTA PDT seems to show Jackals and Coyotes.......but lets not assume that we train with vehicles we deploy on operations with still!!!
 
The problem is that in a conventional war they would be so much mincemeat and tinfoil in no time at all. The follow-on point being that our recce assets are using them because the cupboard is bare/the cost of UORs is now being justified by having taken those vehicles into core.

We've got them because we've got them, not because we should necessarily have them.
And may not get replaced

I absolutely agree but we are where we are

conventionally I’m thinking mobile fire support to light infantry (including RM and 16 Air Aslt) and rear area/convoy security
 
Having wondered why the evidence on the Armoured Vehicle procurement committee was a bit light, there are more submissions:
 
Having wondered why the evidence on the Armoured Vehicle procurement committee was a bit light, there are more submissions:

Which seems to be most of the big names ticked off.

Edit:
Quick glance at the RBSL evidence:

Does it make sense to upgrade the Challenger 2 when newer, more capable vehicles may be available from our NATO allies? 15.It makes complete sense from an economic, strategic and military perspective to upgrade Challenger 2. Furthermore, it would be wrong to suggest that newer vehicles are available from our allies; the German Leopard 2 was introduced into (AVF0013)5 service in 1979, the US M1 Abrams was introduced into service in 1980 and theFrench Leclerc introduced into service in 1992. All are older than Challenger 2, whichwas introduced into service in 1998. However, all these tanks and indeed other platforms held by NATO countries have benefited from a series of incrementalupgrades, which supports the case for a Land Industrial Strategy (LIS).

Didn't we make exactly the same point a few months ago? Whose been copying our homework? :p

More interestingly:
The Challenger 2 Life Extension Project (CR2 LEP) will create the most capable MainBattle Tank (MBT) in NATO. The proposed upgrade exploits several years of MODand company investment in all elements of the platform.CR2 LEP will deliver a network enabled, digital Main Battle Tank ensuring a true 21st century deterrent through to the Out of Service Date of 2040. The programme will introduce a proven smooth bore gun, providing a step change in lethality and shall include significantly improved platform survivability. The proposal blends the very best technology RBSL,its parent companies, the government research organisation DSTL and a range of suppliers from both the UK and overseas allies can offer. As a project, CR2 LEP has met all its milestones and will sustain high end engineering capabilities across the UKeconomy to ensure that that the UK retains and develops the core competencies required to design and develop a modern armoured vehicle. The project in itself satisfies a number of Government agendas ranging from UK Prosperity to Levelling Up. The sights have been designed, developed and will be manufactured in the UK aswill the digital electronic architecture and night driving sights. Ancillary equipment will be sourced from suppliers across the UK, including SMEs, thereby ensuring thatUK engineering and manufacturing capabilities develop over the course of the next 5years and are able to support the British Army’s MBT fleet until their out of servicedate in 2040.

So it's good out to 2040 now? I always thought the OSD was 2035?
 
Last edited:
Which seems to be most of the big names ticked off.

Edit:
Quick glance at the RBSL evidence:



Didn't we make exactly the same point a few months ago? Whose been copying our homework? :p

More interestingly:


So it's good out to 2040 now? I always thought the OSD was 2035?

It was...

I imagine this has been pushed back to 2040 due to the additional scope of the ‘new’ LEP, and because of the delays in the programme since the mandate was written.


2040 would also align with the expected OSD of WCSP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Having wondered why the evidence on the Armoured Vehicle procurement committee was a bit light, there are more submissions:

we’re going to need to make it amphibious too, General Nick now wants to invade China.
 
Having wondered why the evidence on the Armoured Vehicle procurement committee was a bit light, there are more submissions:
Good to see @Listy and @Cold_Collation giving evidence in there.

Where's @PhotEx ' contribution?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top