Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Jun 2022, 15:52 For what it is worth I see tracked Boxer with the 155mm gun module fitted being a play by RBSL for the AS-90 replacement

Not a chance. It's about 5 years behind the MFP requirements timeline.

Direct-fire HE for what purpose? Because you want that building/trenchline/bunker/wall to go away and you don't have the time to wait for CAS or guided missiles to spare nor do you want to cross the km or so of open ground to place a bomb by hand. So an assault gun too. Not something the British Ar...

Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect). 81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too. With a turreted mort...

Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect).

81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too.

I do wonder though with the problems Ajax is in and how Lord Jim said above the possibility of consolidating nearly all Boxer manufacturing to the UK, if the army will seriously consider the tracked Boxer in place of Ajax. It’ll give industrial benifits, solve the on going Ajax issues by getting ri...

They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are. Not sure where you get that idea from. If you go back over the requirements for the MRV(P) you will see how initally they were supposed to be in a support role and not on the frontline. However this slowly changed to saying they may b...

In its role as a Command Vehicle, it carried not just a standard Bowmen radio, but the sufficient Bowman Radios etc. to be able to command a Battalion or Regiment. These ended up being far bulkier than the preceding Clansman sit up and had to be shoe horned into the Panther chassis. No such thing a...

Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Jun 2022, 05:20 They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are.

Not sure where you get that idea from.

I do not see the MRV(P) programme delivering vehicle like the types purchased under UORs for Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather then call them MRV(P) we should use the title that was previously used for the programme that resulted in our orders for teh Boxer, so call it the Multi Role Armoured Vehicle (L...

Just a reminder of what we could have had instead of Panther...V-shaped hull... Mind you if they'd have botched the systems integration like they did with Panther it could still have been a dogs breakfast... https://twitter.com/thinkdefence/status/1534164628078575620 Low roofline, large wheels and ...

Just watching a clip on the Warthog we had 110 of them in Afgan I don;t know how many came back but why did we let it go so quickly. Why didn't we order another batch to equip a light Mech Battalion battle group It's not particularly light at 15t, and the only other Bronco operator was Singapore. I...

Being Mr Picky's evil twin, the ammunition for modern western 155mm comprises of the shell, a varying number of individual propellant charges dependant on range requirements etc, and a primer. How could you forget the fuze? Not a gunner then! With the Rheinmetall test gun, the Propellant chamber is...

I've already said why. The Army fails to invest in incremental updates and major upgrade programs. Buying what is "common and readily available" is a trap of becoming peer-matched tomorrow and vulnerable to counter-battery in just a decade. Lusting after the revolutionary and exquisite ha...

Why award any credit for not meeting the capability need? How odd. The threshold is the need, anything more is extra credit. Similarly there would be a threshold for a range of mobility performances, rate of fire, crewing requirements and a bunch of other things I'd expect the threshold to be somew...

Which is why you set the threshold at a more widely achievable level so you can allow extra credit for reaching further but you can compare the costs vs other parameters for the different options. Why award any credit for not meeting the capability need? How odd. No, but there's only one supplier w...

The main problem with the "L60 ordnance" is that it is indistinguishable from "buy it from Rheinmetall" with the added risk of "wait until it is developed and keep using AS90 with a L39 ordnance until you run out of money and either keep using AS90 with L39 or dispense with...

Since barrel length doesn't necessarily confer capability and you've pre-selected only those suppliers offering it. On top of that if you pick the 60 calibre option then you've already constrained yourself to a charge system as well. You have written a preferred solution, not a capability requireme...

Not at all. The requirement is clearly to have a capability that outranges the opposition capability. Part of that capability is to have a big enough gun, L60 or quite rightly pointed out, an L58. If the first is what you want, that is how it should be phrased: "The weapon will have an effecti...

Rheinmetall have gone public on their development. In that case while you write "should we have a requirement for a 60 calibre length gun", what you are really asking is "should we sole source this one to Rheinmetall?" Not at all. The requirement is clearly to have a capability ...

Lord Jim wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 14:28 Doesn't the Rheinmetall L60 test bed have a unique propellant chamber, and uses non NATO standard propellant charges?

Not the intention.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... e-howitzer

Should the a British requirement include 60 Cal gun? No, if anything it should only include range and dispersion characteristics. Which is also dependent on the rounds used, which is a seperate requirement again. It's pretty simple physics that L60 gives a better throw than L52 when using conventio...

Should the a British requirement include 60 Cal gun?

Personally, I think it must include it as a growth capability with 5-10 year plan to implement.

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 19:39 I am certain that a QEC with the “Number 10” would be! Also, there are not many “yachts” that will have cost £3.25B!

But it's not a yacht. It's a filthy flat top that stinks of ATF and covered in hydraulic leaks.

A third QEC. How about HMS Churchill (R10) Perhaps a tad ambitious but for the £250m budgeted the UK could build something very much resembling HMS Ocean. Now that really would be dual use. You don't get it. Dual use isn't an option. It's why the MRTT got repainted. Grey, dual-use isn't flashy enou...

Isn't the Foxhound under GDUK now and still being offered in different forms like utility and WMIK It has been displayed at DVD years ago (4?) In that format. But there's been no business wins so it's pretty much a legacy line now with no manufacturing facility. Speaking of DVD, this has really put...