CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
TBH. WCSP is a holding pattern to disguise the fact it's a can kicking exercise. Warrior is at least 37 years old in design and most of the hulls must be at least 30 years old. Warrior really needs replacing so frankly pissing £12bn ish all told on an upgrade program that's at least 20 years too late is deeply stupid and we'd be better off spending that money on a new IFV program. Preferably a straight forward "You'll be buying this or you're sacked" order from the Defence Minister or that £12bn will disappear in pointless tests.
£12bn for WR CSP? Is it made of Unobtanium?
 
£12bn for WR CSP? Is it made of Unobtanium?

Google is oddly throwing up results fors costings that are weird. It may be £1.2bn all told or it may be £12bn all told. Thro more sites say £1.2bn rather than £12bn so I'm probably wrong. That costing includes a £227mn overspend and £430mn already spent so I think £1.2bn is the correct figure .

So not as bad as I thought but still ridiculous. We're possibly finally fitting a stabilised gun in a new turret after 30 odd years in service including 2 major wars and countless op tours.

Meanwhile the Dutch are conducting a major upgrade of their 17 year old CV9035s with a complete new turret fitted with a 50cm elevating mast, a twin Spike-LR pod, a hard kill aps system, a new sighting system and are slapping rubber tracks on to reduce wear.....

By that reckoning we really should be on Warrior Mk 2 at the very least.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Google is oddly throwing up results fors costings that are weird. It may be £1.2bn all told or it may be £12bn all told. Thro more sites say £1.2bn rather than £12bn so I'm probably wrong. That costing includes a £227mn overspend and £430mn already spent so I think £1.2bn is the correct figure .

So not as bad as I thought but still ridiculous. We're possibly finally fitting a stabilised gun in a new turret after 30 odd years in service including 2 major wars and countless op tours.

Meanwhile the Dutch are conducting a major upgrade of their 17 year old CV9035s with a complete new turret fitted with a 50cm elevating mast, a twin Spike-LR pod, a hard kill aps system, a new sighting system and are slapping rubber tracks on to reduce wear.....

By that reckoning we really should be on Warrior Mk 2 at the very least.
Or instead you can cancel it and have nothing, while throwing the existing expenditure away. All while hoping a BOXER can get out of that ditch it fell into.
 
TBH. WCSP is a holding pattern to disguise the fact it's a can kicking exercise. Warrior is at least 37 years old in design and most of the hulls must be at least 30 years old. Warrior really needs replacing so frankly pissing £12bn ish all told on an upgrade program that's at least 20 years too late is deeply stupid and we'd be better off spending that money on a new IFV program. Preferably a straight forward "You'll be buying this or you're sacked" order from the Defence Minister or that £12bn will disappear in pointless tests.
I wonder if Warrior will stay but the upgrade cancelled - with warrior limping along until replacement - the Jam being that Warrior OSD is brought forward 5 years
 

NemoIII

War Hero
I wonder if Warrior will stay but the upgrade cancelled - with warrior limping along until replacement - the Jam being that Warrior OSD is brought forward 5 years

If I'm being honest this would be the best case scenario, save ourselves money, run the fleet ragged upto 2030 and look at a new IFV starting now. (ASCOD 42 once the AJAX order is fulfilled)
 

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
Any new IFV is a decade away, if we're lucky. Likely 15 years. WCSP bridges that gap quite nicely.

Also WCSP opens an opportunity to get some seriously nice kit if it can cover us for 20 years (and the MoD have some foresight and balls).
If we actually decided to make a decision, I'm sure that Singapore would sell us their new HUNTER AFV. Comes complete with Hydrogas suspension.
 
I think everyone needs to get real here - cancelling WCSP does not free up money for some other cool idea - it’s means there’s no money.

We could start again - but I doubt any money will be available to do that in the next 5-10 years (we’re talking hundreds of £M before you even get to production), which in reality means no IFV until at least 2035. We’ll therefore have invested a tonne of money in CR3, but hamstrung it by failing to provide a credible IFV to work alongside it for 10 years of its life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If we actually decided to make a decision, I'm sure that Singapore would sell us their new HUNTER AFV. Comes complete with Hydrogas suspension.

That's what I meant by having a set of balls. We need to act now to solve the problem in 15 years.

I still reckon our best bit is a heavy IFV on s common chassis, with MBT and possibly SPG on the same hull.
But, if we're going COTS the Lynx Kfz-41 looks tasty. No idea if it's any good, but it does look nice (AKA: the Saudi purchasing method).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I think everyone needs to get real here - cancelling WCSP does not free up money for some other cool idea - it’s means there’s no money.

We could start again - but I doubt any money will be available to do that in the next 5-10 years (we’re talking hundreds of £M before you even get to production), which in reality means no IFV until at least 2035. We’ll therefore have invested a tonne of money in CR3, but hamstrung it by failing to provide a credible IFV to work alongside it for 10 years of its life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yebbut. Boxer. Interchangeable modules. Best in its class. New. Big. Green. Warrior old.

I agree with you, for what it's worth. 'Replacing' Warrior with a 21st century Saxon makes no sense beyond on the balance sheet.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Yebbut. Boxer. Interchangeable modules. Best in its class. New. Big. Green. Warrior old.

I agree with you, for what it's worth. 'Replacing' Warrior with a 21st century Saxon makes no sense beyond on the balance sheet.
Yeah, and it has twice the number of wheels!
 
If we actually decided to make a decision, I'm sure that Singapore would sell us their new HUNTER AFV. Comes complete with Hydrogas suspension.
I’m sure that they would, and I’m equally sure that it would cost more and take longer than continuing with WCSP, resulting in a capacity that isn’t much, if at all, more capable.
 
I’m sure that they would, and I’m equally sure that it would cost more and take longer than continuing with WCSP, resulting in a capacity that isn’t much, if at all, more capable.

Twitter seems to be going mad at the moment, with everyone ecstatic that this seems to vindicate their own theory regarding whether we should have bought [insert favourite brochure vehicle] with [insert favourite brochure turret] and a sprinkling of [insert favourite brochure missiles].

All the arguments in the world about through life savings, modularity and commonality mean absolutely nothing if you don’t have a big chunk of RDEL/CDEL to buy new kit in the 10-year planning horizon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
still reckon our best bit is a heavy IFV on s common chassis, with MBT and possibly SPG on the same hull.
I think there is merit to that, coupled with looking at automotive technology development. The ISD for new systems will be beyond the point where civilian vehicles will be transitioning to electric drives, which could alter logistics considerations for the life of the vehicles.

I would advise against a common chassis as a literal term, instead aiming for common construction techniques and systems.

Then there are a wide variety of questions to address such as armament and weight class before we can look at protection and automotives.
 
I think there is merit to that, coupled with looking at automotive technology development. The ISD for new systems will be beyond the point where civilian vehicles will be transitioning to electric drives, which could alter logistics considerations for the life of the vehicles.

I would advise against a common chassis as a literal term, instead aiming for common construction techniques and systems.

Then there are a wide variety of questions to address such as armament and weight class before we can look at protection and automotives.
Common chassis is an easy fix, given the known constraints of road width, bridge or tunnel heights, rail transport limits, length:width for steerability ratio, and NATO mobility standards for climbing slopes, fording or whatever. Effectively a 20ft ISO container on tracks, with at least 20hp/ton,you can then faff about with what goes where, types of suspension and the rest, but all the limitations exist however much you try to change them.
 
Common chassis is an easy fix, given the known constraints of road width, bridge or tunnel heights, rail transport limits, length:width for steerability ratio, and NATO mobility standards for climbing slopes, fording or whatever. Effectively a 20ft ISO container on tracks, with at least 20hp/ton,you can then faff about with what goes where, types of suspension and the rest, but all the limitations exist however much you try to change them.
Defining the physical envelope doesn’t really define the chassis. A literally common chassis represents something where most of “what goes where” has already been determined and any role-specific kit has to fit in around it.
 

QRK2

LE
What evidence would you like if the opinion of the people that use it doesn’t matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I though you said CO ATDU. If there were a rash of Tweets from users that would be different. Rather than yet another functionary looking to impress his 2RO. When has anyone in such a position failed to tweet anything other than wholly positive opinions on the shiny new kit they are playing with?
 

Latest Threads

Top