UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑25 May 2023, 17:32 Making a difference?

I think that (almost) every tank with dozer blade could do the same. Those cones are not very big and they are only placed on the ground, not dig down.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑25 May 2023, 17:32 Making a difference?

Slow down enough to take a pot shot at. Always have to assume they are more solid than that. Imagine if every third one had a 2m foundation...

Another expendable we have to rely on others for

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:00 Another expendable we have to rely on others for

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

Is it suprising though? When did we last order any? Are the buildings being\already demolished at Barrow where they used to make them? Can BAE not source them from Sweden or the States?

tomuk wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:12

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:00 Another expendable we have to rely on others for

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

Is it suprising though? When did we last order any? Are the buildings being\already demolished at Barrow where they used to make them? Can BAE not source them from Sweden or the States?

Not surprised in the slightest. However I do not believe we should be relying on others for things that would need replacing regularly especially in a war.

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:17

tomuk wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:12

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:00 Another expendable we have to rely on others for

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

Is it suprising though? When did we last order any? Are the buildings being\already demolished at Barrow where they used to make them? Can BAE not source them from Sweden or the States?

Not surprised in the slightest. However I do not believe we should be relying on others for things that would need replacing regularly especially in a war.

Better cancel some F35, Ajax and T26s to pay for spares and ammo then.

tomuk wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:49

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:17

tomuk wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:12

SW1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 21:00 Another expendable we have to rely on others for

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

Is it suprising though? When did we last order any? Are the buildings being\already demolished at Barrow where they used to make them? Can BAE not source them from Sweden or the States?

Not surprised in the slightest. However I do not believe we should be relying on others for things that would need replacing regularly especially in a war.

Better cancel some F35, Ajax and T26s to pay for spares and ammo then.

That’s exactly what I would do.

Hardly a surprise. Bae ran out of work due to Brown & Blair cancelling all the new Bae AFV programs and proposed closing the last gun barrel shop in the UK. Government said OK, we don't care.

Gordon Brown, the gift that continues to give. And folks in the UK think Starmer would be good for defense. Ha.

Which gun barrel shop are you referring to? The one in Barrow that made M777?

Ron5 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 14:03 Hardly a surprise. Bae ran out of work due to Brown & Blair cancelling all the new Bae AFV programs and proposed closing the last gun barrel shop in the UK. Government said OK, we don't care.

Gordon Brown, the gift that continues to give. And folks in the UK think Starmer would be good for defense. Ha.

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/19216916 ... ystems-uk/
Is this the gun barrel shop you were referring to still open in 2021.

Nottingham.

Ron5 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 13:32Nottingham.

Yes I know the old ROF Nottingham was closed 20 years ago with production moved to Barrow.

I take it Barrow never produced the barrels for the M777?

I think the barrel is made in the US.

I'm surprised though that the USMC would allow this, surely theres a future need.

Jdam wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 21:03 I take it Barrow never produced the barrels for the M777?

The M777 was originally a VSEL Barrow product and they built the prototypes. BAE took over Marconi Defence including VSEL and when the Americans ordered the gun a large proportion of the gun was made in America with the barrels made in upstate New York. It is similar story with the L118\M119 again UK design which in that case was a ROF Nottingham product the M119 is mainly US built with the barrels made in the same facility in upstate New York as the M777.

Jdam wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 21:03 I take it Barrow never produced the barrels for the M777?

Initially they did. A lot of the complex titanium work remained there.

Seems like first Trophy testing on CR3 platform are over and now first batch will be procured for qualification and integration

Longer article about it from the Army website

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ign=People

There will be no increase of number of CR3 tanks, plan is still to upgrade just 148 tanks

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-chan ... -says-mod/

sol wrote: ↑26 Jul 2023, 13:26 There will be no increase of number of CR3 tanks, plan is still to upgrade just 148 tanks

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-chan ... -says-mod/

Honestly - the UK should stop this sillyness with the C3 - and just the latest Abrahams tanks in bulk. The C3 just feels like an intellectual pet project for someone, and not about actual increase of military capability..

CH-3 will be a great MBT as CH-2 won the last NATO MBT competion what a month ago the problem is not the tank or the cost it is the numbers we should be upgrading 190 of them as requested by the Army

A £20 million contract has been awarded, securing the hardware for the next phase of tests on a cutting-edge new rocket and missile protection system for Britain’s Challenger 3 tanks.
https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... llenger-3/

This has just appeared.

This is the thread....its bollocks.

- The author appears unaware of Farnham and Epsom, new generations of British developed armour is being used...
- Seems utterly unaware that CR3 has a new turret!
- States that the CR2 that was destroyed by friendly fire was operational again within a month....err...no it wasn't. It was a total loss...the turret was blown off in the fire and deflagration.
- Seems to think that the newest CR2 being 20 years old and the oldest over 30 (utterly incorrect, it actually entered service in 1998, 25 years ago...) is an issue....he appears to be unaware of how old the vast majority of Leopard and Abrams hulls actually are....CR2 is quite youthful in comparison, particularly regarding its time on tracks...
- Claims the current number of CR2 is 227, but only 148 are functional. Of course the number is in fact 213 as 14 have gone to Ukraine, but is also unaware that there are a further 75 in 'Deep Storage'. After a recent conversation with someone with REME it turns out that these 75 are in far better condition than the defence twitterati are aware and are in near operational condition. The person I talked to had worked on them over the last few years in storage, he also stated that they weren't in a great condition in 2014 when there were serious issues getting enough tanks ready from there for deployment to Estonia, but that since then they had had a lot of work done on them...Total Fleet Management has been a disaster though all round, necessitating a lot of work to get well...
- Is completely unaware of the more modern HE natures that are a good replacement for HESH....or any of the other natures that are available that CR2 could never have...
- Claims CR2 is slow....not across country it isn't...i.e. where tanks operate. Could it do with more horsepower? Sure. But its suspension is WAY better than other tanks...

I have no idea if the point isn’t thread are true or not but the person who was head of the army’s armoured warfare trials and development unit for the past few years until retirement seems to think it’s valid and that good enough for me



He’s been adamant in a number of threads the answer for the UK was leopard.