Britons are in trouble

[David Moyes]

Ajax-family bridge-layer. 
Supposedly called Acheron. Don't know if this is official.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[David Moyes]

Hi-res Challenger 2 Mk.2 promo shot:

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[David Moyes]

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[alanch90]

The front plates on the turret front and sides seem thin and bolted on. Whats the reason for that?

[David Moyes]

10 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

The front plates on the turret front and sides seem thin and bolted on. Whats the reason for that?

Looks better. Not joking. 
Also armour modules get bolted onto the turret sides when on operation.

[Serge]

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

I ask myself if this turret request the same Dorchester Level F up armor than the genuine one. 

 

[mr.T]

Of course this might be just mockup with thin sheet mtal clading ,  but its Interesting that only commanders hatch has all round observation pericopes also loots of exposed roof in this design .

[2805662]

I’d put money on that turret being non-ballistic. There’s some interesting design choices - what I’d call short-comings: vertical commander’s hatch & no visible armoured doors on the gunner’s sight (forward of the commander’s hole). 

[Serge]

It’s not a mockup. 

[Krieger22]

 

[Ramlaen]

[SH_MM]

19 hours ago, alanch90 said:

The front plates on the turret front and sides seem thin and bolted on. Whats the reason for that?

 

The armor modules of the Challenger 2 are always fixed with bolts. Rheinmetall probably added some thin layers of "cosmetic steel" to make everything look flush.

 

17 hours ago, mr.T said:

but its Interesting that only commanders hatch has all round observation pericopes also loots of exposed roof in this design .

 

These parts of the design are directly taken from Challenger 2. It is a charade to call the turret "new", but its better for marketing I guess...

 

17 hours ago, 2805662 said:

There’s some interesting design choices - what I’d call short-comings: vertical commander’s hatch

 

Same as on the original Challenger 2.

[Serge]

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

The armor modules of the Challenger 2 are always fixed with bolts. Rheinmetall probably added some thin layers of "cosmetic steel" to make everything look flush.

He asked about the metal panel bolted over the turret. On the legacy turret, you don’t have such a panel.

With the Rheinmetall turret, the half front is covered by separated plates. This « skin » is interesting because it makes options integration easier. 

 

[2805662]

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Same as on the original Challenger 2.

 

Point still stands: poor design. 

 

ETA: original design’s hatch folds back from vertical. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by 2805662

[Plebola]

Somewhat unrelated but also related. 

 

I heard that the toilet and BV are being removed in the new update to the CR2 (the latter being a horrible design choice in my personal opinion)...where was the toilet in the old one/does anyone have any pictures of it?

[Serge]

To refresh about what the legacy turret looks like :

[Serge]

So, no news at DSEI-2019 from BAE about their involvement in the Challenger 2 LEP ?

[David Moyes]

On 9/13/2019 at 12:21 AM, Plebola said:

Somewhat unrelated but also related. 

 

I heard that the toilet and BV are being removed in the new update to the CR2 (the latter being a horrible design choice in my personal opinion)...where was the toilet in the old one/does anyone have any pictures of it?

The toilet is under the loaders seat.
 

BV is a requirement for British AFVs. I doubt it's been totally removed. 

 

16 hours ago, Serge said:

So, no news at DSEI-2019 from BAE about their involvement in the Challenger 2 LEP ?

The BAE-GD offer was never a real option.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

[Serge]

 

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

The BAE-GD offer was never a real choice.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

So BAE/GD spend money for nothing !

 

 

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

The BAE-GD offer was never a real choice.
Competitions in the British Army are largely pre-determined and the final results twisted to reaffirm the decision. 

The Rheinmetall offer was always going to be selected. Although this hasn't been made official yet.

 

Given that Rheinmetall had essentially no local production sites in the UK and didn't deliver any AFVs to the British Army before, I was under the impression that the BAE-GD cooperation was deemed to win until Rheinmetall presented the Challenger 2 LEP & formed Rheinnmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). BAE Systems is a British company that has provided the British Army with Warrior, Challenger 2, AS-90, etc., while General Dynamics European Land Systems is delivering the AJAX family of vehicles.

 

Rheinmetall was the underdog given its limited foothold in the UK, only got in a favourable position after acquiring MAN's military vehicle divison, forming RBSL and getting downselected for the MIV program (has there been a contract for the Boxer yet?).

[Serge]

Oh oh !

I missed the point : Rheinmetall and BAE formed a JV by January. 

[David Moyes]

11 hours ago, Serge said:

 

So BAE/GD spend money for nothing !

 

They received government funding.
It's the price you pay to keep the illusion of a competition. 

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Given that Rheinmetall had essentially no local production sites in the UK and didn't deliver any AFVs to the British Army before

Neither did Lockheed-Martin UK.
10 years later we're still waiting for WCSP.

Rheinmetall seem to have a good relationship with Supacat and the Newcastle factory where Challenger 2 was built is now owned by the Reece Group (Pearson Engineering) who they're working with on Boxer.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I was under the impression that the BAE-GD cooperation was deemed to win until Rheinmetall presented the Challenger 2 LEP & formed Rheinnmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).

BAE-GD offer is at best a last resort.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

BAE Systems is a British company that has provided the British Army with Warrior, Challenger 2, AS-90, etc.,

BAE systems bought the companies that built those things
BAE is a scam of a company but uses its massive influence (BAE is an aerospace giant and much of the UK's economy is aerospace based) within the Government to get contracts. 
"Anyone but BAE" is the mantra of the MoD.

RBSL joint venture is the result of BAE finally accepting that they will never win a "competed" contract, jumping on Rheinmetalls popularity within the Army and keeping other defence giants out of the UK market.
For Rheinmetall they benefit from BAE's influence and their focus on Land systems won't cause problems with BAE's dominance in Aerospace.
 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

while General Dynamics European Land Systems is delivering the AJAX family of vehicles.

Army and GD fell out.

Army used to like American companies but is now enamoured with German and Israeli stuff.

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

(has there been a contract for the Boxer yet?)

No. It was thought to happen at DSEI.

 

[David Moyes]

[David Moyes]

RBSL CR2 demonstrator shown to Prime Minister and Defence Secretary. Second time it's been shown to high ranking government officials. Previously it was at a UK-Germany defence meeting.

[Ramlaen]