If only there was somewhere like that in Bovington and somewhere like Telford...

Going back the the integration of new systems, this is what the Boxer was designed for form the start, hence the Mission Module. Installing a turret on this is in no way as complicated, costly or time consuming as doing so on the Warrior for the WCSP or on the ASCOD 2 for Ajax. I wouldn’t take that...

“Stealth” isn’t binary, people.

Oh dear.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... SApp_Other

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

J. Tattersall wrote: it comes from OA

Sorry, what is OA?

Operational Analysis, usually

ArmChairCivvy wrote: the Warrior one - 'old' if the Warrior prgrm does not make it over the chalk lines, or new production in the opposite case.

Isn’t it new in either case?

I think that changing the top plate is a far superior method of modularity for an AFV than the Boxer flatbed arrangement.

abc123 wrote:What would you do with that money?

Complete the procurement that’s already on the table.

The last paragraph in the Times article is very interesting calling the Army's submission "Unambitious" with regards to its modernisation programme. Could this mean they are going to have to speed certain programmes up and make cuts elsewhere, the result being they cannot keep everything ...

Does the Boxer have facilities for a brew up ? When reading memoirs of tank crews, particularly of the Second World War, it’s apparent that there are two meanings for “brew up” which are quite different, and frequently has me reading back to check the context. The answer for Boxer is almost certain...

As I have said before, the Mission Module after conversion must meet a set of parameters that are already known. T The point I am making is that when you have a number of inter-related parameters you cannot possibly cover every set of eventualities so when you have a new arrangement you still have ...

If the MoD had gone all pragmatic and settled for the Stormer family to refresh CVR(T), bought Piranha 3 that Alvis was making under license to replace Saxon, and procured Warrior 2000 for the IFV fleet, that would have freed up the older Warriors for conversion to replace the FV 430 family and the ...

Lord Jim wrote:The maximum module weight would be one of the already set parameters, worked out during the original development of the Boxer platform using both physical testing and computer modelling most likely.

What about centre of gravity offset and inertia properties?

The thing is that a modular interface definition cannot hope to capture all possible variations so there is likely to be some parameters you will need to test each time. Plus it has to work both ways. It doesn’t help to have the chassis working fine with the turret on top if the turret doesn’t work ...

I'm sure there would be a hand book for this, but off the top of my head - a general design would work the concept (which heeds requirements, and may be also exposes where they have been set so as to be excessively expensive to meet fully... that would cause an iteration of its own) into a whole, w...

For the moment I’ll say that I don’t think you can make the split like that. I’ll see if I can generate a good summary later.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:OK, let's hash it out a bit more:

What is a general design compared to a detailed design, in your opinion?

Interesting. Are you saying that previous certifications will be completley disregarded and that everying has to be re-tested ab initio? That would certainly put a different light on things. I think it’s more likely that you would have to be able to prove that a previous certification is still vali...

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Define risk of design.

Clearly depends on the contracting model.

The risk that the design does not do what you want. Who is liable?

I thought you were proposing a contracting model where the MoD designed the system and contracted out to produce. If not, what were you proposing?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- staff requirement, concept, give out to industry for responses
- choose 1 for producing a prototype, with no guarantee of acceptance; not 2 or 3 like in the US (as we cannot afford that)

So who carries the risk for the design?

A tank has a disadvantage compared to a human, with its many clear-cut contours: https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/05/ValoCamoPattern.jpg While tanks do have hard edges, straight lines and perfect circles, none of which occur in nature, humans have a number of features that...

New paint scheme on test. Looks like a right arse to apply. I know which colour scheme I won’t be choosing if I want to make a scale model.

WCSP trials proceeding, looks like the same old* videos though.


* all things being relative. we’ve seen these shots before

Over the life of the L85 the Americans have replaced their armalite rifles two or three times

I’ll maintain my position that you cannot attain much if any cost savings by eschewing a turret, but you do introduce operational limitations, such as the need to rotate the whole vehicle to lay the gun on a target more than a few degrees off line.