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.

Over engineering these parts is not a negative! The cost is negligable, the bonuses are quite high.

I would contend that whilst cost is probably negligible - but weight may not be - If youre butting up against weight constraints then excess weight in the form of road wheels and associated systems will be less than ideal.

I would argue the trade off is worth it though. More so if you operate them as mixed fleet** so you can tailor the deployment eg Strike brigades sent with 1 or 2 Squadrons of Meduim weight armour - which when the follow on armoured brigades arrive can be up armoured in a few days to heavy Armour -

**Edit

Arguably weve already half done this Warrior was designed from the outset to have a basic peace time config that was lighter and thus cheaper to run the fleet and have the remaining protection added before active service - thus everything was configured for the higher weight (rather than the side panels etc being additional protection) -

Obviously that approach is less than ideal in this context -
 
Last edited:
Either way, I think we need to bite the bullet and accept we’re no longer the driving force in worldwide armour that we once were, and buy in what we need - when we need it.

In which case Modular armour is essential allowng the UK to install its own armour package - or if not modular buying a bare frame to fit our own (within the oem established weight and distribution limits)

Building a vehicle may not be essential industry - but i feel that both armour development and armour defeating thinngs are
 
Exactly - see my previous ref ‘Trigger’s Broom’.

I think even Ivan has realised this, and is now spiralling money into T-90 and T-72 rather than Armata white elephant...
I believe the Russians are retro-fitting their T-90 fleet with kit that was originally developed for Armata. They find they are getting nearly the same capability for a lot less money. A lot of the new technology that was intended for Armata is actually sensors, electronics, and software which can be adapted for other tanks, provided there is enough room to fit them in.
 
IS there a link that you could share?
Not sure about @Gassing_Badgers comments, but these are reportedly T-72 front plates:

If you've got new armour composition to put in it, it shouldn't be too hard to do so.
 
It appears that the French are having problems because they failed to modernise their tanks:

Obsolescence issues could increase cost of Leclerc XL upgrade

This is only part of the problem. Nexter's order books are so full from now to 2030 that they also want funding for additional assembly/maintenance lines for the VBCI and XL. It is a matter of physical space and lack of workers.

This is what happens when defense is de-funded for decades and suddenly a government decides to overturn years of neglect and orders 1,000s AFVs in a few years.
 
This is only part of the problem. Nexter's order books are so full from now to 2030 that they also want funding for additional assembly/maintenance lines for the VBCI and XL. It is a matter of physical space and lack of workers.

This is what happens when defense is de-funded for decades and suddenly a government decides to overturn years of neglect and orders 1,000s AFVs in a few years.

Always liked the VBCI.
A lot of experience with the shortcomings of the VAB went into it, and it had real combat experience. Had we not chosen Boxer, VBCI would have made a very good second choice. It would also have had a turret for the 40mm CTAS ( tested for a ME client ).
How NEXTER would have been able to fit us in, I don't know.
Certainly with VBCi, Gryphon, Jaguar the French have a formidable ability in rapid intervention. All it needs is a wheeled tank destroyer and something like Nemos and you have all the underpinnings of a highly mobile "fire brigade".
 
Always liked the VBCI.
A lot of experience with the shortcomings of the VAB went into it, and it had real combat experience. Had we not chosen Boxer, VBCI would have made a very good second choice. It would also have had a turret for the 40mm CTAS ( tested for a ME client ).
How NEXTER would have been able to fit us in, I don't know.
Certainly with VBCi, Gryphon, Jaguar the French have a formidable ability in rapid intervention. All it needs is a wheeled tank destroyer and something like Nemos and you have all the underpinnings of a highly mobile "fire brigade".
Rifles tested the VBCI and from the reports I have read it had many short comings. (In their opinions) I am sure they would have come up with similar if testing the Boxer.
 
Rifles tested the VBCI and from the reports I have read it had many short comings. (In their opinions) I am sure they would have come up with similar if testing the Boxer.

One of the things they really didn’t like was the one-man turret (gunner up top, commander down in the hull) - REME also didn’t like the fact you couldn’t do a pack lift.

I believe those things were to be addressed in VBCI-2 - although still no buyer from what I understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CamNostos

Old-Salt
One of the things they really didn’t like was the one-man turret (gunner up top, commander down in the hull) - REME also didn’t like the fact you couldn’t do a pack lift.

I believe those things were to be addressed in VBCI-2 - although still no buyer from what I understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Better than a HMG RWS though surely?!
 
Better than a HMG RWS though surely?!

Depends - if the RWS gunner and commander are sat next to each other, it might make the process of operating the vehicle a little easier - ironically, that’s what let down some otherwise good French tanks in WW2...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CamNostos

Old-Salt
Depends - if the RWS gunner and commander are sat next to each other, it might make the process of operating the vehicle a little easier - ironically, that’s what let down some otherwise good French tanks in WW2...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very limited experience on this but I’d sooner VBCI than Boxer. The latter doesn’t offer me much more than a Jackal.
 
One of the things they really didn’t like was the one-man turret (gunner up top, commander down in the hull) - REME also didn’t like the fact you couldn’t do a pack lift.

I believe those things were to be addressed in VBCI-2 - although still no buyer from what I understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oddly the French were doing VBCI engine replacements in the field in Mali.
Iirc correctly, the commander in the hull had better SA because he had screens you couldn't fit in that particular turret alongside the gunner , the ammo feed and the main armament , it being a little tight.
We won't be having the same problems with boxer until we decide on a turret.
The other thing was that we wanted rear wheel steering ? Have I got that right ?
As regards SA for the rest of the PBI, I heard we liked it. Oh well.
 
Oddly the French were doing VBCI engine replacements in the field in Mali.
Iirc correctly, the commander in the hull had better SA because he had screens you couldn't fit in that particular turret alongside the gunner , the ammo feed and the main armament , it being a little tight.
We won't be having the same problems with boxer until we decide on a turret.
The other thing was that we wanted rear wheel steering ? Have I got that right ?
As regards SA for the rest of the PBI, I heard we liked it. Oh well.

Exactly, the pack can be lifted in the field if necessary.

This "VBCI cannot have its pack lifted" thingy has been doing the round of the UK ever since the so-called trial of truth.

Then, it was required of the contenders to be able to start the engine before mounting it inside the vehicle. This oddity was a reminiscence of the time when Chieftain engines were so unreliable that they had to be tested before being mounted just in case they were duds.

Nexter being unaware of this UK requirement had made no provision for that very specific UK need.

This was all explained in a Think Defense thread some years ago.

Below, a VBCI having its pack lifted out during an exercise in Lithuania as part of NATO's EFP.

une_2020_lynx7_2020_lynx7_maintenance-du-vbci-5.jpg
 
Last edited:
One of the things they really didn’t like was the one-man turret (gunner up top, commander down in the hull) - REME also didn’t like the fact you couldn’t do a pack lift.

I believe those things were to be addressed in VBCI-2 - although still no buyer from what I understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The turret was chosen because it was available, cheaper than others and because it allowed the VBCI to carry a whole section.
 
Top