CR940

@thinkdefence The same designer came up with Supacat's ATMP and later on HMT Jackal, and the larger HMT-like AVA that never made production.

𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗 Let's have a chat about… The Supacat ATMP origin story

@DarthFreder @thinkdefence Nope - all Alvis

@thinkdefence Are the road wheel and sprocket wheels from the M113 familiy?

Pictured: Alvis Streaker, based on the CVR(T), a lightweight tracked load carrier. Do we need something like this now, a modern day universal carrier?

@PreeceRobert @thinkdefence Wasn't for the lack of company proposals - Alvis pushed CVR(T) & Stormer throughout 80s & 90s but were dismissed by MOD who evidently wanted something big and imposing.

@thinkdefence I believe we walked away from CVR(T) in an act of awful short sightedness. Lightweight, easily portable, fast and adaptable (and of course now battle proven in Ukraine). It had/has loads more to offer with a bit of brains and discernment.

@G4Wallah @ryanscottborman @thinkdefence Apparently Stalwart was a REME nightmare for the same reason. All the mechanics were under the deck & cab, and access was down through the load bed. Bad news if it had a full cargo. Worse still if the only way to shift it was using the HIAB when engine failure killed hydraulics.

@ryanscottborman @thinkdefence That would be a maintenance issue and a half, HMTV is mid engine and apparently not fun to get at when the transmission goes bang.

@thinkdefence But a problem of its own making, with constant requirement creep, gold plating, massively heavy process and a complete lack of understanding that speed of procurement is vital

I don't think people realise how little room for financial manoeuvre the MoD has, the Defence Investment Plan will have to consider backlogs (various), existing contracts, costs that cannot be changed, and all sorts of other commitments.

@thinkdefence There's going to be a lot of Landies going spare soon

I would like to propose the MoD and DSTL hold a competition to see who can create the cheapest logistics UGV, not the best. We need to start thinking seriously about cost. The rules 1. The UGV should be no larger than a standard NATO pallet 2. Any communications and control equipment must be contained in a 600x400x400 Eurobox 3. Any batteries must also be contained within a 600x400x400 Eurobox 4. The top must be free from obstruction and fitted with tie down points 5. They should be stackable such that two can be carried inside a standard ISO container (20 per container) 6. They should have fork lift pockets such that they can be moved by forklifts and telehandlers 7. The sides must feature a rail system to support tie downs accessories 8. The top must accommodate removable fixed side rails 9. All components must be readily available, commercial or military off the shelf 10. The design selected will become sovereign owned 11. The design must use standard fasteners 12. It can be tracked or wheeled 13. Design can be autonomous or remote control, or a combination. 14. No upper target on range, but minimum should be 30km 15. No upper target on payload, but minimum should be 300kg Extra marks for being the cheapest Double extra marks for being able to be fabricated in unit What about your rules?

@thinkdefence Have been saying this to those who possibly have influence for close on 20 years; many agree but nothing ever happens. Maybe the weight of TD opinion will finally persuade the right people to get on and make the necessary changes.

I'm of the opinion that we at least need to bring the defence establishments back, and even some manufacturing/support in public sector hands

@B0ATsmith @thinkdefence Alvis did Stormer 30 with a 30mm Oto gunn in the 90s, and BAE revised it ten years later into CV21 with a different in-house turret, but MOD showed no interest.

@thinkdefence For recce, small is lovely. The biggest problem with Scimitar was lack of internal stowage for the crew’s kit. Which could have been remedied if we’d developed a STORMER with more stowage, decent cannon, and a mast. Which sounds really easy, even for 20 years ago.

I dont know whether Ukraine likes CVR(T) so much because of the vehicle qualities or because they are better than nothing. Would be interesting to find out

@thinkdefence Won't be long then before the company is bought by some vast corporation overseas, especially if it makes inroads into the executive aviation market.

This is fantastic, it is mesmerising to watch. It also reminds me how much aerospace engineering excellence we have in the UK to make us all proud

@HGWellsHouse @thinkdefence But does raise blood pressure to dangerous levels

@thinkdefence I can confirm that reading about Ajax does not cause injury.

Updated this, if you have 5 thinkdefence.co.uk/docs/ajax-hist…

@thinkdefence 13 hours you say? We used to make aircraft with folding wings that took minutes not hours to make airworthy... jetphotos.com/photo/6097830

This short clip illustrates the deployability of the MC-208 Coyote

@thinkdefence Right focus, but to build up enough industrial capacity to ensure resilience without reliance on imports will take a lot more than the defence budget.

Maybe even up to 3%, but only if it is used wisely and used to reinforce industrial and national resilience in depth

Despite the current situation, I still think 2.5% GDP ish on defence is about right for the UK, but only if we are spending more on resilience, industrial capacity, research and development, and other things that make the foundations of the UK rock solid

@thinkdefence Suspect it was more that three crew couldn't fit in Scorpion/Scimitar hull under a remote turret, and if a standard Scimitar turret there would be no space for VERDI displays and controls. For a crew-in-hull concept an APC sized hull is necessary. Spartan Stormer or Warrior.

The choice of Warrior for use as the base vehicle for the VERDI demonstrator seems to suggest an explicit recognition that CVR(T) did not have space or electrical generation capacity for modern sensors and computing equipment.

Let's have a chat about... Vehicle Electronics Research Defence Initiative (VERDI), the road to Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA) THREAD

@thinkdefence The AEC turreted concepts each had a short robust mast with a sensor ball sat on top. Only 6ft elevation, but enough to extend surveillance range and (more importantly) take a sneaky peek over cover. A dozen years now since being dismissed by DE&S because SV/Ajax is perfect.

Interesting that the masses of operational analysis for TRACER stated that a mast was vital

@Thomas977673521 @thinkdefence If I remember the tales of the time right, Ajax turret ring has a larger diameter than most, so retrofitting the turret to existing hulls may be difficult, requiring a lot of stuff under armour being repositioned/redesigned.

@thinkdefence Also can the turret be pulled off and mounted on warrior...

My question on Ajax would simply be are the track and running gear maintenance schedules and instructions comparable to Warrior.

@thinkdefence The rot became invisible (hence unstoppable) when Government stopped reporting Balance of Payments. GDP shows only to how comfy people are to spend. Balance of Payments shows the change in national wealth, and its been negative for decades. There is no money left for defence.

How the UK in general, and defence in particular, has arrived at its woeful state over many years might well be related to how it can be fixed, but we need to look to the future. How are we fixing it, where are the ideas that do more than tinker around the edges?

@thinkdefence I'm all for building up a sovereign capability with funds from the Treasury - that's an investment. But propping up a subsidiary of a US corporation that's not (apparently) taking its product's fitness for purpose seriously doesn't advance UK PLC in my view

What a headline

@SrsTwist1 @thinkdefence It doesn't.

@thinkdefence Andruil just went out, built low-cost cruise missiles on their own, no contract, then asked DoD/DoW if they wanted to buy them. Now even the big defense companies are doing this. Identify the need & fill it. Not sure if that'd work with MoD.

How do you incentivise a missile manufacturer to invest in ruthless cost engineering to drive down the cost of the same missile? Or should the MoD pay for the development and then compete manufacturing separately

@thinkdefence I did ask a sensible question. On a visit to Bovington I chatted with an instructor on Warrior. He said the Warrior was brilliant, dependable, would always get out of trouble. I asked if it would make a good recce vehicle. His clear response: "Of course not. Its far too big."

I could probably ask some sensible questions, but that would be the limit

I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of British Army vehicle programmes from CVRT to Ajax, perhaps more than most, but i am not qualified to tell anyone if Ajax is the right vehicle for its role.

@thinkdefence Won't happen. The dissenter is a disruptor, forcing those in high office to justify and take responsibility for their decisions. That is a path toward no longer holding high office. Much more comfy to keep a head down and mutter about experts and consensus.

In every crisis, conflict, or disaster, without fail, you will find people who have predicted it years before, but were drowned out by credentialed consensus saying the opposite. How do you get decision makers to listen to dissenting voices?