New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
daftandbarmy said:
With a little SEARCH you will find that this idea has been bantered about in several of the Armour Forum Topics:
Future Armour;
Armour‘s Future on the Battle Field;
CV 90 Fan page;
Role of Armour on the new front [/url;
[url=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23894/post-138008.html#msg138008]Ammunition developments; and
I see a Role for MGS.
So you can see that Armour guys are not a bunch of atypical "Muscleheads"; they can be very thoughtful, creative, insightful, and quite capable of intelligent thought.
Even the Artillery guys on this site can be capable of foresight and creativity:
Electro Magnetic Rail Gun; as can others
Particle beam weapons SCI FI or reality in the coming decades?;
Ammunition Developments;
MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle); and many more.
This is quite a collection of thoughtful people, who have a great deal of forward thinking and imagination. They are so forward thinking, they even critique BSG. ;D
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,896
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for the steer George. Now I remember why I lost interest back then: No bayonet attachment...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
TCBF said:
I take it you mean my Avatar? It certainly was Soltau mid 80's - Me commanding Callsign 42 C Squadron 3RTR - Up the 'rickety Rackety road' from 5 ways crossing towards Strip wood!!!! Ah............pure diesel in my blood!!!!! Assuming I can post photos on here simply I can put plenty more on if people would like? ???
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Okay Let's have a look? Sorry the time lag between lands is so large!!!
Disembarking at Esbjerg Denmark - 1978 for EX Bold Guard - 1st Tonka off - 10 mins - next was nearly 2 hours thanks to some nifty parking problems incurred by Hong Kong marshalls when loading at Southampton - Ship = RFA Sir Lancelot.
Closer to home - C Squadron 3RTR - Chieftain Dozer 1979 BATUS Suffield.
This too was BATUS when my Panzer broke before we left BATUS- Got a visit from (I think) the SALH - Most impressed by Cougar and Grizzly.
I even got to have a cabby - unfortunately no pics of them driving my Chieftain.
Hope you enjoyed? I have more - probably too many more - Strangely.
Disembarking at Esbjerg Denmark - 1978 for EX Bold Guard - 1st Tonka off - 10 mins - next was nearly 2 hours thanks to some nifty parking problems incurred by Hong Kong marshalls when loading at Southampton - Ship = RFA Sir Lancelot.
Closer to home - C Squadron 3RTR - Chieftain Dozer 1979 BATUS Suffield.
This too was BATUS when my Panzer broke before we left BATUS- Got a visit from (I think) the SALH - Most impressed by Cougar and Grizzly.
I even got to have a cabby - unfortunately no pics of them driving my Chieftain.
Hope you enjoyed? I have more - probably too many more - Strangely.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,176
- Points
- 1,160
Ha, the Sir Lancelot & Sir Galahad used to tie up in Vancouver and we would go down and drink Red Lion on them. It was the Galahad that was sunk in the Falklands correct?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,176
- Points
- 1,160
Ha, the Sir Lancelot & Sir Galahad used to tie up in Vancouver and we would go down and drink Red Lion on them.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
Double post ???
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Heads-up, gents! This thread may have become instantly relevant:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59522/post-552151.html#msg552151
What sort of MBT replacement can you buy on short notice with over $600M?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59522/post-552151.html#msg552151
What sort of MBT replacement can you buy on short notice with over $600M?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Colin P said:
My only experience was the photo occasion when it took 3 days to get from Southampton to Denmark because...................we damn well broke down in the middle of an extremely choppy North sea!!!!!! Combined with us only being allowed 2 beers per man - totally miserable time between chundering over the side and not being able to walk in a straight line across the ship's beam - when still sober!!!!!
Sir Galahad did indeed go down in the Falklands, there was/is a third LSL - Sir Bedevere, all of them being the only ship not to come under the Navy but, the Army!!!
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,176
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks, I have been having problems posting with the site hanging for 10 minutes at a time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
CSA 105
Never had em reffered to as crap before!? i'll take it as some sort of compliment?
My photos aren't exactly reference to which is the best new MBT for you chaps - perhaps I should start another thread for those of you who want to beat up on an old fashioned Brit Tankie? Incidently, I have a hobby doing artwork of AFVs etc for my pals, anyone interested in seeing some examples? I could post them up too!
Either way, i would certainly say, from reports from Iraq that, we Brits are supremely confident about Chally 2 - to date no penetrations! Of the tank either! I've just been getting involved in a debate over here between an American and a Non Tankie Brit over various design differences between MIA2 and CR2 all to do with ammo stowage protection and a 'trade off' on power/weight ratios!! Don't think so. Any one any ideas for me to clarify on Brit design concepts?
One last pic on this thread -
Plastic CR1 ie: Training tank only - not real chobham armour - taken at the seat of all 'Goonery' gods - Lulworth Ranges 1987!
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,052
- Points
- 1,110
Welcome aboard and great pictures. I love the disembarking tank photo. Who says you can't get tanks where you want em?
Speaking of plastic tanks,
Sorry, since they took my Leopard away this is what I'm reduced to.
Speaking of plastic tanks,
Sorry, since they took my Leopard away this is what I'm reduced to.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
Malcycee said:CSA 105
Never had em reffered to as crap before!? i'll take it as some sort of compliment?
My photos aren't exactly reference to which is the best new MBT for you chaps - perhaps I should start another thread for those of you who want to beat up on an old fashioned Brit Tankie? Incidently, I have a hobby doing artwork of AFVs etc for my pals, anyone interested in seeing some examples? I could post them up too!
Either way, i would certainly say, from reports from Iraq that, we Brits are supremely confident about Chally 2 - to date no penetrations! Of the tank either! I've just been getting involved in a debate over here between an American and a Non Tankie Brit over various design differences between MIA2 and CR2 all to do with ammo stowage protection and a 'trade off' on power/weight ratios!! Don't think so. Any one any ideas for me to clarify on Brit design concepts?
One last pic on this thread -
Plastic CR1 ie: Training tank only - not real chobham armour - taken at the seat of all 'Goonery' gods - Lulworth Ranges 1987!
Interesting drivers hatch. Right below the main gun.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Nfld Sapper said:
UK after Centurion went central for the driver in Chieftain. The principle was adopted partly to lower the overall height of the tank by allowing the driver to fully recline when closed down, it also allows great sloped armour on the glacis plate. It is very comfortable!!! And allows for good spare ammo stowage utilisation with the driver being able to pass it directly behind him into the turret from either each side of him or slightly behind. This principle was carried over onto CR 1 and 2. There is very little danger of the MA 'fouling' the drivers head there was......(not now with TIS), more danger of the gunner's TLS fouling his head giving him a neat 'capbadge' imprint in the front of his skull.
Ammo stowage has always been a controversial issue with the UK having opted for split proj and charge ammo. This has allowed the profile to be kept low(See earlier pic of Grizzly/Cougar alongside Chieftain MBT allows good comparison CR is same overall height as Chieftain roughly) as you don't have to accomodate tall pieces of ammo, more importantly you don't have to worry about spent cases, the only residue post firing is the spent Vent tube - about the size of a shotgun cartridge.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,176
- Points
- 1,160
Gee, and I thought the driver was below the main gun so the TC could bonk him on the head with it when he was being an idiot. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Colin P said:
Now there's a concept!! On Chieftain it was possible for the MA to depress onto the Dvr's head if he wasn't sat low enough - CR the Glacis armour is higher so the gun kit limit switches are set so the dvrs 'bonce' can't cop for it!!!! Half the time on FTX in the German countryside, we TC's were too busy chalking up scores against how many roadsigns we could 'joust' down with the MA. AAAAAHHHHH those were the days.
:warstory:Mind, when I was a TC, One night on a very long road march - my driver Tommo was continually whistling into the Live Microphone on his crew helmet over the IC. After many times, telling him to stop to no avail :threat: my patience wore thin and, having climbed out of my hatch, I ran straight down the front of the turret and swung my right boot smartly into his head...........the whistling stopped. And yes, luckily his helmet stopped us swerving violently off the road.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Okay guys
Bringing us upto date, I notice Infanteer has asked the question about Tanks with Infantry carrying abilities. 'I have a friend' who works for a military defence contractor - he is shortly to become heavily involved in the UK's FRES programme. The concept is to make a medium armoured vehicle with multiple capabilities? I've seen this before when 'Warrior' came about as a MICV - the truth is that the 30mm Rarden is an excellent weapon but, not able to compete with modern MBT capabilities in both defence and offence!! Even now, the automotive duties of driving and maintaining the damn things are being trained over to Tankies so you will end up with Tankies acting as chauffeurs for the infantry in effect. Anyway, here's an article/review on where the UK is with FRES.
A Crisis in the making
The centrepiece of secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon's strategic defence review, announced recently, was a new military system about which very few people know anything. The system is the "Future Rapid Effects Systems" (FRES) and, on the basis of its introduction, Hoon is confident that he can dispense with 19 mainly Shire infantry regiments.
Before discussing FRES in detail, however, it is necessary to set a political framework into which this system fits, and this is best illustrated by recent comments from Javier Solana, the EU's "foreign minister, talking to a meeting of Italian Ambassadors. He told that that "the US must treat the European Union as a full partner in an effective and balanced partnership", and "The European Union has to show the US that it is worthy of that title."
These comments were important because they illustrate a mindset in the EU which, despite the inherent anti-Americanism, displays an intense jealousy of the US. The outward manifestation is an almost child-like determination to prove that "Europe" is at least as good as, if not better than, the US, in every possible way.
It is that ethos, as much as anything, that has driven the EU to commit £3 billion or more to the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system - despite the provision by the US of their "free-to-all" GPS system. Much the same thinking drives the determination of the EU to maintain its own space programme, and to fund Airbus with such generous subsidies.
But this thinking is also driving the EU military procurement programme, to the extent that anything the US has, the EU must have too. This is most obvious in the pursuit of the A400M large military transport aircraft, despite the availability of proven US designs, which are undoubtedly cheaper and in many respects better.
However, this drive to match the US now seems to be pushing the EU - and the UK in particular - into making another blunder in military procurement, of Eurofighter proportions in expenditure terms, and drive UK defence up a cul-de-sac from which it may never recover. That "blunder" is FRES.
Nevertheless, despite it having formed the centrepiece of defence minister Geoff Hoon's recently announced Strategic Defence Review, very few people know anything about FRES. All we know is that Hoon is relying on it as the technological fix that will enable him to cut back on human resources - like soldiers. That so few people are aware of what FRES actually is can hardly be surprising. Two years ago, Gregory Fetter, a senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS, observed that it was "too early to try to figure out what FRES will look like ...It's like trying to grab a cloud of smoke."
And, as late as March of this year, Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary - in a debate in the Commons on defence policy - noted that defence contractors had been "anxiously awaiting a decision from the Government on the future rapid effects system battlefield vehicle that the Chief of the General Staff requires to be in service by 2009, but for which there is not yet even a drawing".
Small wonder that, in the report of the defence select committee published recently, the committee expressed concern that the proposed in-service date of 2009 "will not be met".
So what is FRES?
The quote from Soames actually give some clue. He calls it a "battlefield vehicle", but it is more than that. It is a whole family of vehicles that are intended for the Army of the 21st Century, equipping it for its role as a rapid reaction force. It will enable it to deal quickly and effectively with trouble spots around the world, with maximum efficiency and the minimum expenditure of manpower. At least, that is how the propaganda goes.
For that, the government is preparing to sink around £6 billion into buying 900 vehicles, with an estimated budget for the total costs of ownership over the expected 30-year service life of almost £50 billion. That is a staggering £6.7 million average cost to buy each vehicle and an unbelievable life-time cost per vehicle - yes, each vehicle - of £55.5 million. To say that it would be cheaper to drive our troops into battle in a fleet of top-of-the-range Rolls-Royces hardly begins to illustrate the extravagance.
Whatever the merits of the vehicles - and these will be discussed shortly - the point is that FRES is not a British, or even European idea. It is copied from a US military programme known as FCS, or "Future Combat System". This is an armoured vehicle family designed as a "system of systems", operating in a network, fully equipped with the latest in electronics, combat systems and weapons, all inter-linked through satellite communications. And because the Americans are having it, "Europe" must have it as well.
Furthermore, although Hoon is highlighting it in his own defence review, FRES has very much become a "European" project. Such are the vast development costs that no single European nation can afford them, so it has become another of those joint programmes of which the Eurofighter project is the model.
Already, the European skills at designing just what is needed are coming to the fore. A fore-runner of FRES was the tri-nation programme to develop what was known as the MRAV - the " multi-role armoured vehicle", funded by the UK, German and Dutch governments and managed by the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation).
In a mirror image of the Eurofighter project, the French were also originally involved, but they pulled out to produce their own vehicle called the VBCI. Perhaps this was just as well for, after the expenditure of untold millions, the tri-nation consortium produced a prototype which they named the Boxer, only to find that at 33 tons, it was too heavy for airborne rapid deployment.
But the European involvement has not yet ended - not by any means. Despite honeyed words from the DoD to UK manufacturers, the leading contender for building FRES is a German firm, Rheinmetall DeTec. Should its designs be accepted, the outcome will undoubtedly be the formation of another European consortium to build it, as national sensibilities would not allow British forces to be equipped with German-built machines. And, with costs already escalating, we have another Eurofighter in the making.
I apologise for it being somewhat long winded chaps but, it gives a fair insight as to the 'European dilemna'. You can have the damn things, they can be flexible and transportable but, do you have the air capability to transport them? If not how much does it cost. You guys have had Leo 1 and, by all accounts you'll get Leo 2 and a fine beast it is even if a 'used car lot'. Let's also not forget, when the Bundewehr got Leo 2, what did they do? They decided that Leo 1 could be used in a Medium Recce role and set it up as so. Spahpanzer 'luchs' suddenly found itself almost superseded. So where does the modern world go?
Bringing us upto date, I notice Infanteer has asked the question about Tanks with Infantry carrying abilities. 'I have a friend' who works for a military defence contractor - he is shortly to become heavily involved in the UK's FRES programme. The concept is to make a medium armoured vehicle with multiple capabilities? I've seen this before when 'Warrior' came about as a MICV - the truth is that the 30mm Rarden is an excellent weapon but, not able to compete with modern MBT capabilities in both defence and offence!! Even now, the automotive duties of driving and maintaining the damn things are being trained over to Tankies so you will end up with Tankies acting as chauffeurs for the infantry in effect. Anyway, here's an article/review on where the UK is with FRES.
A Crisis in the making
The centrepiece of secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon's strategic defence review, announced recently, was a new military system about which very few people know anything. The system is the "Future Rapid Effects Systems" (FRES) and, on the basis of its introduction, Hoon is confident that he can dispense with 19 mainly Shire infantry regiments.
Before discussing FRES in detail, however, it is necessary to set a political framework into which this system fits, and this is best illustrated by recent comments from Javier Solana, the EU's "foreign minister, talking to a meeting of Italian Ambassadors. He told that that "the US must treat the European Union as a full partner in an effective and balanced partnership", and "The European Union has to show the US that it is worthy of that title."
These comments were important because they illustrate a mindset in the EU which, despite the inherent anti-Americanism, displays an intense jealousy of the US. The outward manifestation is an almost child-like determination to prove that "Europe" is at least as good as, if not better than, the US, in every possible way.
It is that ethos, as much as anything, that has driven the EU to commit £3 billion or more to the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system - despite the provision by the US of their "free-to-all" GPS system. Much the same thinking drives the determination of the EU to maintain its own space programme, and to fund Airbus with such generous subsidies.
But this thinking is also driving the EU military procurement programme, to the extent that anything the US has, the EU must have too. This is most obvious in the pursuit of the A400M large military transport aircraft, despite the availability of proven US designs, which are undoubtedly cheaper and in many respects better.
However, this drive to match the US now seems to be pushing the EU - and the UK in particular - into making another blunder in military procurement, of Eurofighter proportions in expenditure terms, and drive UK defence up a cul-de-sac from which it may never recover. That "blunder" is FRES.
Nevertheless, despite it having formed the centrepiece of defence minister Geoff Hoon's recently announced Strategic Defence Review, very few people know anything about FRES. All we know is that Hoon is relying on it as the technological fix that will enable him to cut back on human resources - like soldiers. That so few people are aware of what FRES actually is can hardly be surprising. Two years ago, Gregory Fetter, a senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS, observed that it was "too early to try to figure out what FRES will look like ...It's like trying to grab a cloud of smoke."
And, as late as March of this year, Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary - in a debate in the Commons on defence policy - noted that defence contractors had been "anxiously awaiting a decision from the Government on the future rapid effects system battlefield vehicle that the Chief of the General Staff requires to be in service by 2009, but for which there is not yet even a drawing".
Small wonder that, in the report of the defence select committee published recently, the committee expressed concern that the proposed in-service date of 2009 "will not be met".
So what is FRES?
The quote from Soames actually give some clue. He calls it a "battlefield vehicle", but it is more than that. It is a whole family of vehicles that are intended for the Army of the 21st Century, equipping it for its role as a rapid reaction force. It will enable it to deal quickly and effectively with trouble spots around the world, with maximum efficiency and the minimum expenditure of manpower. At least, that is how the propaganda goes.
For that, the government is preparing to sink around £6 billion into buying 900 vehicles, with an estimated budget for the total costs of ownership over the expected 30-year service life of almost £50 billion. That is a staggering £6.7 million average cost to buy each vehicle and an unbelievable life-time cost per vehicle - yes, each vehicle - of £55.5 million. To say that it would be cheaper to drive our troops into battle in a fleet of top-of-the-range Rolls-Royces hardly begins to illustrate the extravagance.
Whatever the merits of the vehicles - and these will be discussed shortly - the point is that FRES is not a British, or even European idea. It is copied from a US military programme known as FCS, or "Future Combat System". This is an armoured vehicle family designed as a "system of systems", operating in a network, fully equipped with the latest in electronics, combat systems and weapons, all inter-linked through satellite communications. And because the Americans are having it, "Europe" must have it as well.
Furthermore, although Hoon is highlighting it in his own defence review, FRES has very much become a "European" project. Such are the vast development costs that no single European nation can afford them, so it has become another of those joint programmes of which the Eurofighter project is the model.
Already, the European skills at designing just what is needed are coming to the fore. A fore-runner of FRES was the tri-nation programme to develop what was known as the MRAV - the " multi-role armoured vehicle", funded by the UK, German and Dutch governments and managed by the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation).
In a mirror image of the Eurofighter project, the French were also originally involved, but they pulled out to produce their own vehicle called the VBCI. Perhaps this was just as well for, after the expenditure of untold millions, the tri-nation consortium produced a prototype which they named the Boxer, only to find that at 33 tons, it was too heavy for airborne rapid deployment.
But the European involvement has not yet ended - not by any means. Despite honeyed words from the DoD to UK manufacturers, the leading contender for building FRES is a German firm, Rheinmetall DeTec. Should its designs be accepted, the outcome will undoubtedly be the formation of another European consortium to build it, as national sensibilities would not allow British forces to be equipped with German-built machines. And, with costs already escalating, we have another Eurofighter in the making.
I apologise for it being somewhat long winded chaps but, it gives a fair insight as to the 'European dilemna'. You can have the damn things, they can be flexible and transportable but, do you have the air capability to transport them? If not how much does it cost. You guys have had Leo 1 and, by all accounts you'll get Leo 2 and a fine beast it is even if a 'used car lot'. Let's also not forget, when the Bundewehr got Leo 2, what did they do? They decided that Leo 1 could be used in a Medium Recce role and set it up as so. Spahpanzer 'luchs' suddenly found itself almost superseded. So where does the modern world go?
