Army Rumour Service

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.

Here are a couple of retrospective looks at Chally procurement.
Interesting that Leo 2 was strongly recommended - on a side note, has history risked repeating itself with Boxer & Patria?


 
Here are a couple of retrospective looks at Chally procurement.
Interesting that Leo 2 was strongly recommended - on a side note, has history risked repeating itself with Boxer & Patria?


Stuart was an officer during my time in 4RTR; I remember picking him up from the airport and he insisted on sitting up front with me. Whatever the actual reason for Leo not being selected, we were told that it's protection was seriously compromised by the gunner's sight armour being......the gunner's sight! Cue the sight getting moved up in later models. Saw a boneyard of Leo hulls getting ready for the scrap yard after surviving EOD in Afghan but ending up bent.
The consensus on on my course at Bovvy was Leo btw-anything rather than Chieftain.
 
For those of you interested in the Plastic Armour thing I mentioned. Part one of my pitch is here:

Part two will, unsurprisingly be next week.

I'll go blind if I keep quoting myself like this...

But for those of you who care, part two of the plastic article is here:

Plenty of AFV porn if nothing else, and even suspicious links to Burlington (at least in my futile mind).
 
Here are a couple of retrospective looks at Chally procurement.
Interesting that Leo 2 was strongly recommended - on a side note, has history risked repeating itself with Boxer & Patria?



“....In addition, recent experience of the vulnerability of AFVs to drones and loitering munitions in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict show the importance of integrated air defence in the deployment of armoured formations. Once again the UK is found badly wanting here....”


needs printing out and nailing to every ‘we must have new armour over everything’ obsessed VSO‘s forehead.
 
“....In addition, recent experience of the vulnerability of AFVs to drones and loitering munitions in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict show the importance of integrated air defence in the deployment of armoured formations. Once again the UK is found badly wanting here....”

needs printing out and nailing to every ‘we must have new armour over everything’ obsessed VSO‘s forehead.

Landceptor just came into service, and is a by all accounts a nice bit of kit, and procurement relativity unpainful? Sprinkle in Starstreak at the tactical level, and it would seem that we're doing Ok in AD side of things?

Granted it would seem that there's a disparity between whacking a small drone with a the missile used to do so at current. But I wonder if the 40mm CTA with some of its AA rounds and high elevation will do something to fill that hole?
I'd still hope a decent sized laser on a chassis would be the obvious answer to large numbers of drones and the like. And those are not too far off I suspect.
 
Landceptor just came into service, and is a by all accounts a nice bit of kit, and procurement relativity unpainful? Sprinkle in Starstreak at the tactical level, and it would seem that we're doing Ok in AD side of things?

Granted it would seem that there's a disparity between whacking a small drone with a the missile used to do so at current. But I wonder if the 40mm CTA with some of its AA rounds and high elevation will do something to fill that hole?
I'd still hope a decent sized laser on a chassis would be the obvious answer to large numbers of drones and the like. And those are not too far off I suspect.
A single regiment of Landceptor doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Army's understanding of AD
 

TamH70

MIA
Armenians getting the bad news, no idea what is doing it

All the build-up and no pay-off?

Hmm.

Anyway, here's the official Azerbaijani government page on that day's activities, listing all the Armenian stuff they made go boom.


No information on what they were using to do the smiting, however.
 
A single regiment of Landceptor doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Army's understanding of AD

I think the Army understands its GBAD needs pretty well.

Problem is, up until recently GBAD was the responsibility of Air Command - with the missile systems themselves (but not radars or C2) paid for out of the Complex Weapons budget (ie MoD centre). Army have just taken on ownership of GBAD within the last couple of years, and found that whilst the centre still have money to fund missiles, there was nothing planned to provide the rest of the system. Perhaps Air had made the assumption that ABAD was a higher priority than GBAD?


Having said that, GBAD appears to be right up there with deep fires in terms of current Army priorities - but there’s always the nagging doubt that Combat Support in itself isn’t necessarily the only answer if you don’t have capable Combat assets to support...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

aardvark64

War Hero
A single regiment of Landceptor doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Army's understanding of AD
Especially since they took over airfield coverage from the RAF Regiment... How many launchers are we buying again?

ETA: beaten to it by @bassing_gadger, above.
 
Frankly, I'm shocked that the RAF would prioritise aircraft.

Has the organisation learned nothing about inclusivity?

Don’t worry - Project Tempest will allow for submissions from other vehicles who self-identify as combat aircraft, and will extend LGBTQ+ to include the letters ‘AS’ to cater for Autonomous and Synthetic personnel...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
but there’s always the nagging doubt that Combat Support in itself isn’t necessarily the only answer if you don’t have capable Combat assets to support...

Nailed it.

Somewhere along the line (as we may have agreed several times per hundred pages of this thread) military action is about taking and holding ground - which means parking one's AFV's (note, all arms) on Her Majesty's enemy's lawn.

Deep strike, loitering munitions and all the rest are not new. 1980s concepts (and weapons) and the swarming killer drone (if it can survive EW and counter battery actions etc) is nothing more than a slow moving top attack missile. Alleged footage from alleged actions does not change that. Active protection does (subject to ADS system recycle time). A killer drone capable of transporting some 5 to 10 kg of shaped charge warhead to a couple of metres above a tank turret is unlikely to be cheap.

Hooting low speed drones with 7.62 is not rocket science, and somewhere someone is no doubt developing 120mm air burst.
 
IIRC we were thinking of making our 110mm gun capable of slapping Pop-up helicopters at 4km range back in the 70s. Then we realised its a silly idea.

It’s not really that crazy - a good gunner ought to be able to hit a hovering helicopter at 4km using a modern FCS and ammunition system.

A fin round still has a reasonably flat trajectory even at that range, and enough KE to make a fragile whirligig feel a big sick...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
It’s not really that crazy - a good gunner ought to be able to hit a hovering helicopter at 4km using a modern FCS and ammunition system.

A fin round still has a reasonably flat trajectory even at that range, and enough KE to make a fragile whirligig feel a big sick...

And while a hit's far from guaranteed, a fin round's a lot faster than an ATGM, and if having a pop at the helicopter means it evades... for most CLOS systems that's going to put a big wiggle in the missile's flightpath.
 

Latest Threads

Top