RAF & Navy hardware looking quite modern nowadays

[Teddy Lop]

Boom78 said:

I’m not doubting the hit and saviour of an MBT but are they actually needed where the theatres will most likely be contested in the future? Yes, we don’t really know where we’ll be needed but the artic is hotting up massively. Light weight, flexible, deployable is the need isn’t it? Guessing this is why the marines and rangers are changing, new threats means changes

what are the theatres of the future then?

A smart adversary will seek out your weakest point to focus his attack, and I imagine a fleet of tanks has a bit of a lead time.

[Tlandcruiser]

MBT days are over, easily taken out by a drone/ ATGM hidden in a building or ditch.

Fast armoured transport vehicles will be more beneficial

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Tlandcruiser said:

MBT days are over, easily taken out by a drone/ ATGM hidden in a building or ditch.

Fast armoured transport vehicles will be more beneficial

Don't be so quick to write their obituary.

APS are just in their infancy and there new armour packs in the pipeline.

And a fast APC isn't any faster than some MBTs.

[Evanivitch]

Absolutely gutted for the ladies and gents working on Warrior CSP. Lot of effort has gone into that, and scrapping the project is a huge hit to UK Land capability. Hopefully Lockheed Martin maintain a business in the UK post AJAX turret builds.

Tlandcruiser said:

MBT days are over, easily taken out by a drone/ ATGM hidden in a building or ditch.

Fast armoured transport vehicles will be more beneficial

Oh the naivety...

[DuncsGTi]

I just re read my comment about tanks and it might come across as a bit arsey, that wasn't my intent.

I just feel passionately about it, I feel we are going down a route where we will end up losing critical capabilities which we will struggle to regain.

Canada relatively recently decided to scrap their full MBT fleet before realising the gaping hole it left in capability and they went out and bought Leopard 2 to replace their outdated fleet. We should be doing similar IMO. As much as it pains me to say it we should be chinning CR3 off altogether and developing Leopard 3 in partnership with the Germans.

[DuncsGTi]

Evanivitch said:

Absolutely gutted for the ladies and gents working on Warrior CSP. Lot of effort has gone into that, and scrapping the project is a huge hit to UK Land capability. Hopefully Lockheed Martin maintain a business in the UK post AJAX turret

Is it confirmed binned??

If so then that is probably a bigger blow to capabilities than the loss of a CR2 regiment. No use having the armoured thrust to smash through a position if you don't have foxhounds to follow you in in a suitable platform.

I know the ajax platform has an APC variant coming but looking at how long the project is taking I'm not holding out much hope of seeing it anytime soon

[Evanivitch]

DuncsGTi said:

Is it confirmed binned??

If so then that is probably a bigger blow to capabilities than the loss of a CR2 regiment. No use having the armoured thrust to smash through a position if you don't have foxhounds to follow you in in a suitable platform.

I know the ajax platform has an APC variant coming but looking at how long the project is taking I'm not holding out much hope of seeing it anytime soon

AJAX programme has ARES, 2 crew 4PAX. Not a IFV, not a APC.

Warrior will be replaced by Boxer 8x8 with further variants to fill gaps in existing order.

[DuncsGTi]

Evanivitch said:

AJAX programme has ARES, 2 crew 4PAX. Not a IFV, not a APC.

Warrior will be replaced by Boxer 8x8 with further variants to fill gaps in existing order.

I was under the impression that Boxer was going to mechanised battalions rather than being used within the armoured BG in place or warrior?

I had a good look around a Dutch Boxer about 18 months back and it does seem like an impressive platform.

[Tlandcruiser]

Evanivitch said:

Oh the naivety...

Naivety, not quite, I was in the army and its just my opinion on the role of the MBT in the future.

Edit - The USMC are going to ditch tanks in the future, but I don’t recall if the tanks will bolster the US Army

Edited by Tlandcruiser on Monday 22 March 20:52

[CharlesdeGaulle]

DuncsGTi said:

I had a good look around a Dutch Boxer about 18 months back and it does seem like an impressive platform.

Boxer is very impressive. Pity that the UK wasted squillions by binning FRES and then (re)-joining the partnership as now-Boxer, but at least we got there in the end.

[DuncsGTi]

Tlandcruiser said:

Naivety, not quite, I was in the army and its just my opinion on the role of the MBT in the future.

Edited by Tlandcruiser on Monday 22 March 20:50

Out of interest, what role did you have in the army?

[Evanivitch]

DuncsGTi said:

I was under the impression that Boxer was going to mechanised battalions rather than being used within the armoured BG in place or warrior?

I had a good look around a Dutch Boxer about 18 months back and it does seem like an impressive platform.

It was, and Strike Brigades. But that will expand now.

[Evanivitch]

Tlandcruiser said:

Evanivitch said:

Oh the naivety...

Naivety, not quite, I was in the army and its just my opinion on the role of the MBT in the future.

Edit - The USMC are going to ditch tanks in the future, but I don’t recall if the tanks will bolster the US Army

Edited by Tlandcruiser on Monday 22 March 20:52

There's 80,000 bods in the British Army at any one time, the majority of which know little to nothing about a MBT.

The USMC are going to return to being the expeditionary force they were meant to be all along. Even C5 and LCAC don't make Abrams expeditionary vehicles.

How many ATGM are you going to carry on an AFV? How many ATGM will an infantry company carry? Are you going to pair that with a medium calibre weapon? Are you going to spend £150,000 on each missile versus a £2500 round?

[Boatbuoy]

I’ve just been for a walk past the crash gate on the far side of the airfield at RAF Brize Norton, where I was surprised to find 3 A400M’s with one or more engines and/or propellers missing.

Is there a parts supply issue, or a serviceability problem?



....also, quite poignant to see the sun setting on the Hercs.

[aeropilot]

Boatbuoy said:

I’ve just been for a walk past the crash gate on the far side of the airfield at RAF Brize Norton, where I was surprised to find 3 A400M’s with one or more engines and/or propellers missing.

Is there a parts supply issue, or a serviceability problem?

Yes and yes.

One has to hope that such continuing serviceability issues will be resolved by the time they bin the Herc's.... (don't think anyone is holding their breath on that though)

[Boatbuoy]

aeropilot said:

Yes and yes.

One has to hope that such continuing serviceability issues will be resolved by the time they bin the Herc's.... (don't think anyone is holding their breath on that though)

Why am I not surprised?

What a mess. I’ve just done a bit of Googling, what I didn’t expect was to find that this has been going on for so long, and that a year after Airbus / Europrop to have it sorted by there’s still dead airframes sat out there!

Oh well, here’s another couple of shots:

Edited by Boatbuoy on Monday 29th March 23:04

[Evanivitch]

And there we have it, Challenger 3 contract signed, 148 fleet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-5...

[aeropilot]

Evanivitch said:

And there we have it, Challenger 3 contract signed, 148 fleet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-5...

So, they aren't new tanks then, this is a refurbishment/upgrade of 148 of the existing Chally 2 fleet into a reduced fleet of Chally 3 spec.

Kind of ironic that its being done by Rheinmetall BAE Systems

[Evanivitch]

aeropilot said:

Evanivitch said:

And there we have it, Challenger 3 contract signed, 148 fleet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-5...

So, they aren't new tanks then, this is a refurbishment/upgrade of 148 of the existing Chally 2 fleet into a reduced fleet of Chally 3 spec.

Kind of ironic that its being done by Rheinmetall BAE Systems

Same hull, new engine, new driver crewstation, new armour, new turret, new gun, new sights, new targeting equipment.

It's a significant upgrade, yes.

[citizensm1th]

Evanivitch said:

aeropilot said:

Evanivitch said:

And there we have it, Challenger 3 contract signed, 148 fleet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-5...

So, they aren't new tanks then, this is a refurbishment/upgrade of 148 of the existing Chally 2 fleet into a reduced fleet of Chally 3 spec.

Kind of ironic that its being done by Rheinmetall BAE Systems

Same hull, new engine, new driver crewstation, new armour, new turret, new gun, new sights, new targeting equipment.

It's a significant upgrade, yes.

Are they going smooth bore at last?

And it is to low a number imo