Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

It's more of a goals/wish list than a true white paper.

 

Few concrete moves identified, lots of weasel wording. A lot better than no actual plan, but still lots of wiggle room.

 

Case in point, the future of Boxer. It's going to be increasingly relied on, for example replacing Warrior, but nothing on numbers or variants.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 662
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Vickers Valiant on a muddy track :       Barr & Stroud LF 11 gunner sight and the Pilkington PE  Condor commander day/night sight :       Hull amm

What would your Abrahams be without British armour?  Hiw many Abrahams have been list? How many Chally's have been lost. Answer 1 to another Chally.  End of argument. 

General Dynamics UK have created a virtual expo complete with a 3D model viewer for Ajax and Foxhound: https://gdgoesvirtual.com/ls/event.html Password = GD2021 Interesting things like an electro

  • 3 weeks later...
Quote

The British MoD has no plan to do so, but it might even be possible, albeit politically risky, to fit the CTAI cannon to a Boxer.


Politically risky... how? Was it “politically risky” to fit than cannon on the (now defunct) warrior upgrade? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By all accounts the turret did work in the end and the battlefield trials for WCSP were going well.
However with all the delays and cost overruns it simply became untenable to continue.

I would say "politically risky" would refer to the optics of giving LMUK more money to continue a "failed" programme on another platform.


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


VyAX5NJ.jpg
GdNa4ik.jpg

 

Spoiler

 



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

tspHano.jpg

Scottish Conservative leader standing on a Hawkei at Thales in Glasgow.

Recently GDUK has been promoting Foxhound on twitter sparking speculation that L-ATV will be rejected for MRV-P Group 1.
Hawkei turning up at the proposed manufacturing site for Bushmaster (competing against Eagle V 6x6 for MRV-P Group 2) and allowed to be used for a photo-op adds to that further.

Link if you want to see more photos of a politician climbing on a no-step bonnet:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/thales?events=775640429&family=editorial&phrase=thales&sort=best

 

zMxFca8.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

By all accounts the turret did work in the end and the battlefield trials for WCSP were going well.
However with all the delays and cost overruns it simply became untenable to continue.

I would say "politically risky" would refer to the optics of giving LMUK more money to continue a "failed" programme on another platform


Understandable, but isn’t cost overruns par-for-the-course for British army procurement? Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret. Boxer’s modular (or so they say), might cost less to use the technology they literally just developed to upgrade her than go shopping around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret.

Wartime upgrades on vehicles in service from internal prototypes. Not the case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord_James

You're using logic. Army Brass do not.

When the cancelation was first announced people of course suggested a WCSP-Boxer. Various journalists quickly shut down such a thing.

Army will do everything to dissociate themselves from WCSP. Doesn't matter if nearly £500m has been wasted. It's happened before, it will happen again.
I could even see the Army completely dumping CT40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunate, they looked like they were headed in a new direction with the Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3, but I guess all the new changes scared the old men in charge... 

 

Hehe

 

On a similar vein, is the Ajax turret able to be integrated to the boxer, or is it to heavy? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
       
       
       
       
       
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?
       
       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.

×
×
  • Create New...