CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Your not going to get in coming heat rounds during training or low level ops, if the risk is there the APS will be issued, you dont want APS having a ND, because of soldiers doing stupid things,
And then those requirements for MOD contracts saying "EMC compliance will adhere to Def Stan 1234" and suppliers would just say "not paying £xxxxxxxx for testing on EMC, just write down of course it will" will now have to think about it in more detail!!!
 
Thats one Photex stated fact to whit all chally scrapped - shown as wrong
Of course other statements were its getting an Autoloader and reducing to 3 crew ,- and Its going to be kicked down the road again

(all made this year)

German company in frame for £750m Army tank contract​

Rheinmetall is set to win £750m contract to upgrade 150 of the UK's ageing Challenger tanks

ByAlan Tovey, INDUSTRY EDITOR18 March 2021 • 6:40pm

Challenger II tank

The Army's Challenger II tank
Britain’s fleet of Challenger II battle tanks will get a £750m upgrade overseen by German company Rheinmetall, The Telegraph understands.
The industrial giant indicated a contract had been agreed with the Ministry of Defence as it updated the market on its financial performance on Thursday.
About 150 of the British Army’s 227 Challenger tanks will get a new turret and gun capable of firing advanced types of ammunition, along with better targeting and computerised systems.
The future of the armoured vehicles has been subject to intense speculation.
Last summer a major row blew up after leaks to the media that the Army’s tanks could be axed in the forthcoming integrated defence review.
The actual review, issued on Tuesday, signalled the Challenger would stay, but the fleet size would be reduced.
Work to upgrade the tanks will be carried out by RBSL, a joint venture between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems, after the UK defence giant sold a 55pc stake in its land systems division to the German business for £30m two years ago .
It is unclear how much of the upgrade will be carried out in the UK.

Rheinmetall sought to play down the deal after chief executive Armin Papperger told analysts it was confident it had won the contract at a results briefing.
Other industry sources said they understood it was a done deal.
One analyst who attended the briefing asked for clarity on whether the deal was inked, something which the company would have to disclose under Germany’s financial rules, and was assured it was certain.
A spokesman for Rheinmetall said: "Mr Papperger said Rheinmetall was confident that RBSL would be signing the Challenger II life extension programme contract in the near future. RBSL is still in talks with the UK MOD and looks forward to a positive outcome of the negotiations."
The MoD is due to issue a "Defence Command" paper on Monday which details how it will act on the strategy laid out in the integrated review, and is expected to detail plans to expand, update or cut parts of the UK’s arsenal.
An announcement on the Challenger II deal would be likely to be included in the paper.
Challenger II tank

The Challenger II entered service in 1998
An MoD spokesman said: "Work on the Challenger II upgrade project continues and announcements on its progress will be made in due course."
Defence analyst Francis Tusa said: "RBSL doing the upgrade has been the only game in town since the summer, despite bids from others including completely new Leopard tanks from Germany's KMW, which said it would put a plant in Britain to build them.
"Even if the MoD won't say so, there is undoubtedly a contract in place, they just wanted to announce it on their own terms."
 
Ok here's something new to spice up the arguments.

We've sort of touched on the idea of a four man crew, with an autoloader before. With the Bloke who was the loader becoming 2IC/Sys ops for all the additional systems a modern tank needs.

Well a little idea came crunching into my mind when a friend sent me the following PDF he'd found from a US Army Study back in the 80's.

The study is of a UGV, that is of course controlled by the tank. Now, as we are currently watching the RAF and the Tempest program do something similar, IE a manned craft supported by a number of drones, the obvious question is, why not do something with ground forces?

It would go some way to solving the problem of dwindling numbers and manpower.

Memory also gave a kick and reminded me of something I had come upon last year when I was doing some research for a company of Kinetic Energy Missiles (KEM's). Lockheed start work on a missile called the Compact KEM (C-KEM) in the early 2000's. In their early promotional material they had the following idea:
1616183390949.jpeg


The idea was for a small UGV with C-KEM's and an autocannon.
I wonder if the traditional missile is coming to the end of its useful life in Heavy fighting? Due to the ease and commonality of counters. It would seem foolish to design a system around traditional missiles as the ease of counter. That said you are potentially degreading enemy performance by forcing them to mount countermeasures. Of course is the degradation really that large due to the ease in which traditional missiles can be countered? But this is another argument, which we're getting side tracked on.
A KEW weapon, however, gets kinetic big bore cannon style effects on a smaller frame. such UGV's could of course be deployed to flanking positions to create extra combat power.

Anyway, just some brief thoughts.
 
I hear of this super tough back nasty from America that can hold things together... prehaps we should buy a couple of rolls of the stuff from the defence budget (Let's not go mad... two will do) and see how well it works on Challenger tanks?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Ok here's something new to spice up the arguments.

We've sort of touched on the idea of a four man crew, with an autoloader before. With the Bloke who was the loader becoming 2IC/Sys ops for all the additional systems a modern tank needs.

Well a little idea came crunching into my mind when a friend sent me the following PDF he'd found from a US Army Study back in the 80's.

The study is of a UGV, that is of course controlled by the tank. Now, as we are currently watching the RAF and the Tempest program do something similar, IE a manned craft supported by a number of drones, the obvious question is, why not do something with ground forces?

It would go some way to solving the problem of dwindling numbers and manpower.

Memory also gave a kick and reminded me of something I had come upon last year when I was doing some research for a company of Kinetic Energy Missiles (KEM's). Lockheed start work on a missile called the Compact KEM (C-KEM) in the early 2000's. In their early promotional material they had the following idea:
View attachment 558686

The idea was for a small UGV with C-KEM's and an autocannon.
I wonder if the traditional missile is coming to the end of its useful life in Heavy fighting? Due to the ease and commonality of counters. It would seem foolish to design a system around traditional missiles as the ease of counter. That said you are potentially degreading enemy performance by forcing them to mount countermeasures. Of course is the degradation really that large due to the ease in which traditional missiles can be countered? But this is another argument, which we're getting side tracked on.
A KEW weapon, however, gets kinetic big bore cannon style effects on a smaller frame. such UGV's could of course be deployed to flanking positions to create extra combat power.

Anyway, just some brief thoughts.
You'll get them all over-excited and everything. Stop it.
 
But the drones are cyber!
Part of me wants to suggest a drinking game with the defence review on Monday, where each mention of “Cyber” warrants a drink. I do not, however, wish to be held responsible for the inevitable alcohol poisoning.

Even playing with soft drinks would likely run the risk of water intoxication.
 

riksavage

Old-Salt
Part of me wants to suggest a drinking game with the defence review on Monday, where each mention of “Cyber” warrants a drink. I do not, however, wish to be held responsible for the inevitable alcohol poisoning.

Even playing with soft drinks would likely run the risk of water intoxication.
Oliver Reed and Richard Burton splitting the drinks couldn’t even keep up!
 
Part of me wants to suggest a drinking game with the defence review on Monday, where each mention of “Cyber” warrants a drink. I do not, however, wish to be held responsible for the inevitable alcohol poisoning.

Even playing with soft drinks would likely run the risk of water intoxication.

I'm beginning to wonder if the current muppet in charge thinks cyber is referring to cybermen ?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm rather disappointed but unsurprised that the papers are leading with the 'German firm in the lead to...' angle for the CR2 upgrade.

It's the only game in town. There's no need or space for jingoism.
 
I'm rather disappointed but unsurprised that the papers are leading with the 'German firm in the lead to...' angle for the CR2 upgrade.

It's the only game in town. There's no need or space for jingoism.

True. And it's a good game too.
Where are our lot ? Not in the same game.
I'm well happy with the idea of the smoothy and new turret with gizmos wot can give us the extra seconds to get a round down. If they can guarantee that it's got same levels as the current turret, then better still.
I always think we are pretty good at protective armour.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
True. And it's a good game too.
Where are our lot ? Not in the same game.
I'm well happy with the idea of the smoothy and new turret with gizmos wot can give us the extra seconds to get a round down. If they can guarantee that it's got same levels as the current turret, then better still.
I always think we are pretty good at protective armour.

the turret is just a fairly light steel box, it’s the special blend in the armour packs that are the Fairie magik
 

not_observed

Old-Salt
I'm rather disappointed but unsurprised that the papers are leading with the 'German firm in the lead to...' angle for the CR2 upgrade.

It's the only game in town. There's no need or space for jingoism.
One of the points brought out from the Obsolescent and Outgunned report; we have no Industrial Strategy when its comes to AFV's.
 
Top