UK Defence Forum

Thoroughly stupid idea, esp given Brexit and also how EU defence programmes go. The infiltration of EU collaborators are sympathisers runs deep unfortunately. We need to fight the fight on this and help stop it becoming a reality.

I freely admit I know naff all about tanks, but wouldn't it be better to get in with the Americans on a future tank design? Their goals seem to be more inline with ours, than with what the French and Germans can offer...

A long term road map and development/assembly for the U.K. heavy armour forces based on collaboration with Rheinmetall at Telford would seem a sensible move.

THis
" based on collaboration with Rheinmetall at Telford"
sounds like a good idea, as the Leos have been split between two manufacturers, and one is now in the EuroCamp.

But is it that we have the one that is involved with the gun and that is what very much drives the design (as in how it will be different from the previous 'generations'(.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -eurotank/

All that history going to waste if we get into bed with the Eu-tards and their pet project...

Arguably it went to waste when the UK didn’t start developing the replacement for CR2 once that was fully in service. The diversion down medium weight and FRES hasn’t helped.

TheLoneRanger wrote: history going to waste

What a joke! Vickers who built Challenger are long gone. Elswick is used for various engineering work by Pearsons. Barnbow is a demolished wasteland. No factories or people to waste.

Is there any possibility of getting into a partnership with South Korea or Japan they seem to have the capital for development and a commitment to building such especially South Korea ?

To add to the above, ROK comes in ahead of us (by a wide margin!) in defence-oriented R&D
(in millions of purchasing power parity dollars)
Country R&D
United States $55,441.0
South Korea 3,377.3
United Kingdom 2,379.4
Germany 1,530.2
France 1,431.1
Turkey 1,350.9
Japan 1,199.1

There are fresh numbers for Korea from 2020, but no readily available comparison (the above are 2017 data).

The other remarkable feature of what their research, and then development, produces are highly usable weapon systems (relevant for a conscript army) with unit prices that do not break the bank - ie. can be procured en masse, thus avoiding having to use age-old HW and just constantly LEP'ping the most critical components - sound familiar - for maintaining effectiveness

There was previously the possibility of South Korea and Poland developing a tank
https://www.defence24.com/could-poland- ... a-analysis
https://www.defence24.com/k2pl-a-polish ... th-support

This article suggests Polish doubts of involvement with France and Germany could be an opening for someone else to join this duo
https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=37955

With the UK , Australia and Canada all needing to replace there MBT's = 300+ tanks at about the same time could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart

The K2 which the proposal is based on is a very good tank but it is a tank of today even with the Polanisation rather than a tank for the 2030s and onwards. However compared to the T-72 and the Polish variants, it would be a huge step change in capability. They have even developed a unique 120mm APFSDS round for the L/55 gun on the K2 which is supposed to be superior to the latest German round but its performance data is not in the public domain so we will have to take their word for it.

By the way could we retrofit the Krab 155mm L/52 turrets onto our AS-90 chassis, just a thought as they were based on the AS-90 turret to start with? May be a cost effective way to provide an interim performance upgrade to he system whilst we await longer term developments in the field.

Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart

It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.

The first two 24.com articles are clearly sponsored promotions, but have a lot of good detail. E.g. detailing why it was worthwhile for the Turks tp partner with the Koreans to get it 'right the first time'.
- compare with Krab: over 20 years three guns, two chasses... OK, now it is a mature solution

But putting all three sources together, there is a need by 2028 to start rolling out 500-ish MBTs to Poland's forces
- who else will be as big a customer within Europe?
- the Poles have done it before. Their T-55 was much heftier than the original; the T-72 derivative is also a good one
- so can they be shunned, just to secure Franco-German workshares? Or, double the purchase and set up a second production line?
Cfr.

Tempest414 wrote:With the UK , Australia and Canada all needing to replace there MBT's = 300+ tanks

tomuk wrote:

TheLoneRanger wrote: history going to waste

What a joke! Vickers who built Challenger are long gone. Elswick is used for various engineering work by Pearsons. Barnbow is a demolished wasteland. No factories or people to waste.

All due to one Paul Drayson, Labour's procurement supremo who declared all UK AFV manufacture was non-strategic and could be disposed of.

His idiocy on this and other issues had damaging impacts still felt today. He was rewarded with a Lordship.

mr.fred wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart

It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.

I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.

Ron5 wrote:I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.

“Half German and married to a German” doesn’t seem too far from the truth there.
Also subsequently regarded as very British.

The proof would be in the pudding.
If it ends up with Europack engine, Renk transmission, krupp steel, Zeiss optics and Diehl tracks it’s pretty German and might as well be an MGCS.
If it’s a Caterpillar engine, david brown transmission, British steel (somehow), cook tracks, Thales/ Leonardo optics then at least those companies have those capabilities in the UK.

Ron5 wrote:was rewarded with a Lordship.

It is an example of how one can pull us (as a nation) down in world ranks from a medal stand to the tenth or below
... similar actions have, of late, been awarded with a Lordship.

Should have been rewarded with a voyage to the Red Sea, followed by a “encouraged” invitation to “walk the plank”.

Ron5 wrote:

mr.fred wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart

It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.

I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.

Yes this is what I was thinking for the UK but I was thinking more a commonwealth program with work share

Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.

Setting arbitrary work share arrangements leads to subject matter experts from various places being overlooked and issues arising dwn the line. You should let the company designing the product choose the suppliers with a free hand as much as practicable in defence project. If the past year has taught company’s anything it is that the design engineering is conducted where people open there laptops. from a U.K. perspective perhaps armour tech is what we would contribute to the initial design.

In country design integration of systems and assembly is what we should be aiming for. Being involved in something as successful as what leopard became would benefit U.K. plc and the army considerably.

mr.fred wrote:Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.

I agree however what I am thinking of is that if the Australia , Canada and the UK singed up to a Commonwealth tank group they could set up a design house say in Australia and send 1 or 2 of there tanks there each to be tested and striped as Australia has M-1 , Canada has Leopard and the UK has CH-2. Work share in the building would come in the form of CMS , com's , armour , power pack , steel , weapons , sub units and as seen from the frigate builds parts come from all over the world and are put together in the yards of which ever country

mr.fred wrote:Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.

Seems to be working well with Type 26 frigates.

Isn’t the Frigate arrangement a bit more of a license build?

Canada and Australia weren’t on board from the start.