With news of Pearson buy out by Rafael, a short thread to show some appreciation of what a remarkable dominance of their market they have, for a ~75 person company in a large shed in Newcastle.
In summary, unless theyre getting mine clearance kit from Russia (this pic the odd sight of a Finnish Leopard 2A4FIN with Russian KMT-5M roller), when you see a mine plough/roller on an AFV essentially anywhere in the world, they probably bought a Pearson product.
Obviously start with the home market - UK has a lot of Pearson gear, most dramatic (or menacing?) are the full width mine plough (FWMP, recently rebranded the Route Opening Mine Plough) on Trojan AEVs, which you'll see all over the world on heavy engineering AFV.
A lot of NATO users bought Pearson rollers and other front-end equipment (FEE) throughout the time in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many endure in route clearance packages and doubtless in storage when needed again.
In some ways the most impressive achievement is that the US M1150 ABVs mount Pearson FWMP, where you'd surely expect this to be mandated or at least by now superseded by a US supplied item. Taking that market is impressive.
Assorted highlights from around the Europe: Germany's Wisent 2, Finland's Leopard 2R, Netherlands AEV3 Kodiak, many more out there.
At another end of the spectrum, the Indian T-90S/SK fleet use the track width mine plough (TWMP recently rebranded the Self Protection Mine Plough), with 1,500 ordered. One where you might have expected a KMT roller from Russia to go with the Russian tanks. Also Arjun uses TWMP.
Further East, Singaporean Kodiak AEV use FWMP as do South Korean K600 CEV (as well as the General Purpose Blade (GPB) which you also see on many MBT like the pic of a Challenger 2 here).
Brazilian Guarani 6x6 have been trialed in an engineering configuration with Pearson front end kit, including dozer blades and excavators.
Another trial was of the VECTOR 'self-protection mine plough' on the upcoming Spanish VCR Dragón (Piranha 5 derivative). Most vehicles have tested a Pearson device at some point (CV90, Boxer and PARS here).
More recently we've seen smaller scale Pearson gear on a variety of uncrewed systems as conceptual vehicles (and i still stand by by idea for a Milrem/Pearson/Plasan uncrewed route clearance package concept being cool:
Enough unpaid and unsolicited PR for Pearson, but just to hammer home what a cool story it is of a niche but global requirement being dominated by a small company from Newcastle. Or now a small department of a big company from Haifa. Anyway, well done Pearson is the point. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#1 Another wave of Ajax noise & vibration (N&V) chatter has followed IOC. I’m not going to weigh in on either side, but here’s how we might spot if N&V issues are real or rumour – an off-the-cuff thread.
#2 If a platform exhibits N&V that is excessive, it will generally manifest most evidently in two places: people and systems.
#3 People means safety limits on time in vehicle or injury patterns. If one AFV’s usage limits are significantly lower than similar AFVs, that’s a red flag.
It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why us it a serious problem area for the UK?
I’ve broken into a few parts; on to part 3 – Why is Titan a serious problem area? This one is the grim bit of the series, but to be clear the intent is to show plainly the criticality of TYRO and back it as an essential requirement that must be delivered, not just bash on Titan.
As explained in part 1, Titan is a great capability, but it is a bespoke small fleet and consequently has some very significant problems that critically impact the Army as a whole, and the bad news is they can't really be solved in practical terms.
(1/19) With DSEi around the corner, expect Ajax chatter on the topic of IFVs to crop up again, as it has this week. Here’s a thread on IFV options, facts, and my usual ramblings from recent developments.
(2/19) As usual I’m going to try to stick to the kit, I’m not a doctrine or strategy pro on wider force design. Just here to give some facts for others to be informed and make use of as they wish.
(3/19) Ajax is itself a (heavily) modified derivative of ASCOD 2. IFV Ajax would likely take one of 2 paths – remote turret on Ares with lower dismount capacity (aka Ares IFV) or new longer Ajax with traditional IFV config.
As Ajax comes online, a living thread of real and proposed (physical and hypothetical) variants that could expand the capabilities whilst sticking to a single core family for UK medium weight.
The original Ajax requirement, FRES SV, had a range of variants beyond the six the Army is presently buying, and returning to these (and a few more, like IFV) in pursuit of a common medium platform would be a good approach.
I've mixed in ASCOD/ASCOD2 variants as the lineage of Ajax means ASCOD variants are relatively straightforward to share across the ASCOD/ASCOD2/Ajax base platforms, moreso if Ajax does see a stretched IFV hull later this year.
(Part 2) It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why is it a critical requirement?
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
So, Part 2 – Why is combat bridging important anyway?
The UK was the birthplace of the tank and though today it has only a single upgrade programme to show for heavy tracked armour, it was the origin of many key technologies and capabilities used by tanks the world over. A🧵of a few highlights of the glory days of British armour R&D
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire.
FV4211 (initially the Chieftain Mk5/2), an all-aluminium tank that was the first with composite armour, initially called Burlington but renamed to Chobham, based around the concept of composite materials under permanent compression, laid in a matrix with additional materials...