CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
How did LM win over BAE? That has to be the subject of an investigation. Just look at what's been achieved with CV90. All that proprietary research conducted by the Swedes was there for the taking. Were BAE hated that much that the blindingly obvious choice was ignored out of a sudden attack of ‘twisted bitterness’ syndrome? Punishment for failure in the MOD\Army procurement = promotion and an MBE.
££££. LM said a new turret wasn’t needed. BAE said there was. BAE was also in the doghouse at the time.
 

riksavage

Old-Salt
So somebody was telling porkies....
Hence the need for a royal commission into army procurement. Failure to do so will only lead to more f$&k ups and cash being poured on the bonfire of incompetence. Where's the accountability?

If I was a defense minister I’d order a root and branch investigation into procurement and name and shame. The UK puts India in the shade and that is some achievement.

Apparently the UK is number 14 on the list of NATO countries when it comes to the percentage of the defence budget spent on kit. Where does all the money go; pomp, ceremony, mess kits, different uniforms for regiments that would struggle to fill a sportshall?

People bang on about increasing defence budgets, but the amount of money wasted right now is eye-watering. You’d be out on your arse in the private sector if you ran procurement like the MOD/Army.
 
Last edited:

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
IIRC it's Pensions.
Correct.

I’m also told GD is touting an extended hull Ajax with a CT40 turret to replace Warrior....
 

TamH70

MIA
Correct.

I’m also told GD is touting an extended hull Ajax with a CT40 turret to replace Warrior....
Where's the cash going to come from for that?
 
Correct.

I’m also told GD is touting an extended hull Ajax with a CT40 turret to replace Warrior....

I'd question if it's a smart move. In an ideal world we'd gap the capability, and come back to it when we're getting our new MBT, so we can get a HIFV to go along with the MBT to increase production numbers, drive down costs.

Of course this is a less than ideal world, and it's highly likely that gapped capabilities get lost due to political interference (supported by having yet another light infantry type in the head of the army spot). Equally, it's a hell of a gap of 15-20 years (also how long would this vehicle take to get into service?), there'd be skill fade and hte horrible risk of a war. Would the politicians sign off on a short term buy to cover that space of time? Or when we come to buy the new hulls will we get 'but you had these brought just 20 years ago!' routine? Generally in the Cold War this wouldn't be an issue as most AFV's didn't hang around that long as primary role AFV's. However, we've had Cr2 for far too long, and a malaise of not upgrading has set in.

There again the Navy managed to gap carriers, and get them back again, albeit only for a 3 year gap, and the hulls were already under construction at that time.
 
However, we've had Cr2 for far too long, and a malaise of not upgrading has set in.
We’ve barely had it 20 years while other armies have been upgrading 40 year-old vehicles to better effect.
Warrior or FV430 would be better poster children for that accusation.
 
Well that is possibly one less that will need recovery and repair before disposal

1618129690105.jpeg

Phot courtesy of the Sunday Telegraph. Hope no one was hurt.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
Correct.

I’m also told GD is touting an extended hull Ajax with a CT40 turret to replace Warrior....
Wont work, its too long for the width.

In order of cost its really:

1. Main threat IFV - Leave Warrior alone and accept Rarden is good enough
2. Main threat Dismounted - Remove Warrior turret, all crew in hull like boxer, plate over the top and fit protector RWS with 30mm and potentially Brimstone.
3. New IFV time

Ultimately the problem is with Space and Cyber rightly becoming domains needing attention, and defence not getting a huge amount more money, certain lemons are going to have to get squeezed as much as possible for the lemonade.
 
We’ve barely had it 20 years while other armies have been upgrading 40 year-old vehicles to better effect.
Warrior or FV430 would be better poster children for that accusation.

1996-2021: that's close to 30 years old.

Lets compare:

Centurion: 1945-1966. 21 years, but multiple upgrades, and it was really a failure of technology and setting our goals too high that prevented the replacement from getting in. We were expecting to be replacing it about 1950.
Conqueror: 1955-1966: 11 years
Chieftain: 1966-1983: 17 years, and a huge number of upgrades.
Challenger 1: 1983-1998: 15 years.

At current we've had Cr2 for about 30-50% longer than any other tank in our history, and this is the first real upgrade.
When Cr2 out of services in 2040 the tank as a concept, will have existed for 124 years, and Cr2 will have been in service for 44 years. That means we'll have used a single tank type for roughly 35% of the entire existence of the tank! The next longest would be the Centurion on 16%, the Vickers Medium on 14% and then the Chieftain on 13%. Difference is that all the other three had continuous, massive upgrades throughout their life.
 
Last edited:
This is the key problem with Army culture; we have to stop people (mainly Regular DE officers) gaming the system to get ahead, of which I have seen some truly egregious examples.

Give some examples please, it always amazes me at just who uses Arrse to check on things against what they are being told officially.
 
Wont work, its too long for the width.

In order of cost its really:

1. Main threat IFV - Leave Warrior alone and accept Rarden is good enough
2. Main threat Dismounted - Remove Warrior turret, all crew in hull like boxer, plate over the top and fit protector RWS with 30mm and potentially Brimstone.
3. New IFV time

Ultimately the problem is with Space and Cyber rightly becoming domains needing attention, and defence not getting a huge amount more money, certain lemons are going to have to get squeezed as much as possible for the lemonade.

3 is what’s happening but it’s called Boxer and is an APC
 
I'd question if it's a smart move. In an ideal world we'd gap the capability, and come back to it when we're getting our new MBT, so we can get a HIFV to go along with the MBT to increase production numbers, drive down costs.

Of course this is a less than ideal world, and it's highly likely that gapped capabilities get lost due to political interference (supported by having yet another light infantry type in the head of the army spot). Equally, it's a hell of a gap of 15-20 years (also how long would this vehicle take to get into service?), there'd be skill fade and hte horrible risk of a war. Would the politicians sign off on a short term buy to cover that space of time? Or when we come to buy the new hulls will we get 'but you had these brought just 20 years ago!' routine? Generally in the Cold War this wouldn't be an issue as most AFV's didn't hang around that long as primary role AFV's. However, we've had Cr2 for far too long, and a malaise of not upgrading has set in.

There again the Navy managed to gap carriers, and get them back again, albeit only for a 3 year gap, and the hulls were already under construction at that time.
Not CR2s fault it hasn't had a rolling upgrade programme, that fault lies entirely with the MoD and Treasury (with a bit of help from our VSOs).
 

Latest Threads

Top