Jump to content


Photo

Uk Boxer Purchase Imminent.


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 02 November 2016 - 2223 PM

Based on the diagram showing the "driver's periscope" I think every driver is going to have to be nicknamed "Eric Wry-neck". And that's all I'm saying on this subject.

Damnit, that wasn't clear.

 

Given that the driver is on the left, the item marked as "driver's telescope" definitely isn't that. The accuracy of this piece of information is probably comparable to that of the rest of the article. And that's definitely all I'm saying now.



#42 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 03 November 2016 - 0304 AM

 

Is it too late to rename it 'Gavin'? :)


Oh feck me Stuart! That was good. We have the same sense of humour ....

 

The way the world is today, one kind of has to find the soft underbelly somehow. :D

 

DB, I suspect you are right. No matter how flawed Ajax might be, its still hard to conceive its less battle-worthy than Scimitar now is. Its the equivalent of using a Staghound armoured car in the 1980's.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 03 November 2016 - 0306 AM.


#43 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,821 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 19 November 2016 - 1526 PM

Didn't see that coming.

 

Romania to Award Armored Vehicles Deal to Germany's Rheinmetall

 
By: Jaroslaw Adamowski, November 18, 2016
 
WARSAW, Poland — Romanian Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos has announced that the country's Defence Ministry is planning to award a contract for the delivery of armored personnel carriers (APC) to Germany's Rheinmetall Defence. The company is to team up with a state-run Romanian manufacturer and launch a plant in Romania that will produce the APCs.

"There will be a partnership, a Romanian-German joint venture, which will allow Rheinmetall to obtain the contract from the Ministry of Defence and build an armored personnel carrier that will be first supplied to the Romanian military," Ciolos told local broadcaster Europa FM in an Nov. 17 interview.

Under the plan, the new APCs will replace Romania’s TAB vehicles, which are a locally built variant of the Soviet-designed BTR-70. The amount of the planned acquisition was not disclosed, but the Romanian Armed Forces is planning to replace about 1,500 such vehicles in the coming years. 

"A portion of the funds will stay in Romania and allow to create new jobs here," Ciolos said.

According to the prime minister, the country’s Defense Ministry is seeking to conclude similar deals with foreign manufacturers for other military procurements. This includes the planned acquisition of new corvettes for the Romanian Navy, according to Ciolos. 

The prime minister said that for 2017, the Romanian government is aiming to allocate a maximum of 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product to defense expenditure.

 

http://www.defensene...nys-rheinmetall



#44 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 19 November 2016 - 1955 PM

Is it too late to rename it 'Gavin'? :)

Tis a very British name. 



#45 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 19 November 2016 - 1957 PM

 

DB, I suspect you are right. No matter how flawed Ajax might be, its still hard to conceive its less battle-worthy than Scimitar now is. Its the equivalent of using a Staghound armoured car in the 1980's.

 

Up to a point a given platform can have a lot of life. Look at the M1114 ASV, that's new running gear and a other details on a 1960s design. 

 



#46 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,073 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 19 November 2016 - 2043 PM

 

Is it too late to rename it 'Gavin'? :)

Tis a very British name. 

 

 

They should call the support variants "Stacey".



#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 20 November 2016 - 0336 AM

 

 

DB, I suspect you are right. No matter how flawed Ajax might be, its still hard to conceive its less battle-worthy than Scimitar now is. Its the equivalent of using a Staghound armoured car in the 1980's.

 

Up to a point a given platform can have a lot of life. Look at the M1114 ASV, that's new running gear and a other details on a 1960s design. 

 

 

Its a good vehicle, but its primarily a support vehicle. It can fight, though as seen in Iraq its not particularly enhanced in the survivability stakes if it does so. Still a hell of a lot better than armoured hummers I would be the first to admit.

 

You can stretch a vehicle for years (im thinking of the M41DKs, or South Africa's Olifants as examples) but there comes a point when you are better off with a clean sheet of paper and start again. The best example of that was the recent article on matrix games blog on the A6F. Yes, it would have been a substantial step forward. But it would still have been a 1960's airframe, with all the negatives that means.

 

https://baloogancamp...forms-never-6f/

 

I guess the impression the Russians have got to that stage with most of their equipment now.



#48 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 25 November 2016 - 0349 AM

What is it about Modern Britain that it proves manifestly incapable of procuring AFVs?

 

http://www.thetimes....tract-7jktw5p0v

Britain was accused last night of conducting a “sham” competition for a £3 billion contract to supply armoured vehicles that is allegedly skewed to favour a German supplier.

Defence industry sources said that they were appalled at the way that the Ministry of Defence was handling the long-running plan to replace the army’s ageing fleet of wheeled armoured vehicles, some of which were produced in the 1960s.

They accused the team in charge of the procurement of rushing out a seemingly half-hearted attempt to engage with foreign and British defence companies that are interested in the deal.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 25 November 2016 - 0350 AM.


#49 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 26 November 2016 - 0421 AM

So that would be BAe Systems' lobby in action then.



#50 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 November 2016 - 0729 AM

I dont disagree, but I can understand their frustration. They wait cap in hand for AFV orders for the past decade and a half, stalled mainly due to the MOD's own efforts, then when some money turns up they get shafted.



#51 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 26 November 2016 - 0923 AM

Moreover, BAe has the right to take its case to the public in situations like this and that right needs to be exercised.  The British public needs to be made aware and kept aware of just how bad the MoD's situation is.  Unless there is a public demand for better defense and a willingness to give the MoD at least a Craft Beer Budget (not champagne, but craft beer), nothing significant will improve.



#52 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 November 2016 - 1100 AM

There was an interesting article in Warships monthly this month, even Parliament has noticed and is starting to get concerned. The chair of the Commons  Defence Committee (Conservative MP DR Julian Lewis) remarked on the start contrast between UK Spending on Defence and other areas. Apparently its 4 times on health and about tow and a half times on education that we now spend on defence. We arent even really doing 2 percent of GDP. Its only 2 percent after the Government rejigged the books to include military pensions and overseas aid spending. In fairness, we DO seem to have a pretty good Defence Secretary at long last. But such is the obsession with austerity over everything else, one has to question how much good that is.

 

Look, I dont like defence companies playing the same silly games Boeing played over Airbus. It smacks of commercialism when you should be putting the country first. But looking at it from BAE's position, they have been a good supplier to the MOD for a long time. And until we start recognizing we really need to be throwing bones to our own industry to maintain capabilities, they are going to evaporate, and that I think in a period when our alliances look less certain than ever is not a direction we are going in. 20 years ago we knew what alliances we would have 15 years hence. Today, im not sure we even know what alliances we are going to have next year, or at least not ones we can rely on.

 

We still should procure Boxer because its necessary, and as it happens, unavoidable in the time scale we need it. But its a situation that really could have been completely avoided by multiple Governments.



#53 jmcmtank

jmcmtank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 12 September 2017 - 1718 PM

Oh dear....

Boxer%20British%20by%20birth%20(10).jpg



#54 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,904 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 September 2017 - 1728 PM

ARTEC really wants the deal, does it not?

The first pic I saw of it looked like photo shop, but no they have actually painted it.

#55 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2017 - 1933 PM

Cynical marketing is cynical.

Did make me laugh, though.

"British by (surrogate) birth"

Edited by 2805662, 12 September 2017 - 2234 PM.


#56 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,307 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 September 2017 - 2207 PM

so much apc for 8 dismounts.

#57 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palm trees and pearly white sand
  • Interests:Obscure facts about common tanks

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0144 AM

I guess that's just how it needs to be nowadays. 8 living dismounts is better than 12 dead ones.

#58 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0154 AM

If I recall correctly, warrior has seven dismounts, plus the commander. So its just bringing APC's in line with the IFV's we have. And its not as if the APC's being FV432's were in any way adequate for the role, even if they offered a bigger dismount section.

 

Basically they can paint it any fecking colour they like. Its about as British as the Tipoo Sultan. For a country that is currently obsessed with doing things itself, the penny has yet to drop to actually start doing things ourselves.



#59 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0343 AM

They should have used the slogan "You already paid us £57 million." instead of "British by birth".

 

so much apc for 8 dismounts.

 

Aside of the fact that the Boxer is fitted with the Dutch command post mission module, the Boxer carries enough food, water and equipment for the crew and dismounts to survive 10 days without any assistance from other sources; as far as I know, that is not common practice with older APCs.


Edited by methos, 13 September 2017 - 0343 AM.


#60 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 996 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0543 AM

Cynical marketing is cynical.

Did make me laugh, though.

"British by (surrogate) birth"

 

In a sense it is.

 

The hull of the first prototype was built by Alvis and delivered to KMW for integration in November 2001.


Edited by Dave Clark, 13 September 2017 - 0544 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users