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is that the US M1150 ABVs mount Pearson FWMP, where you'd surely expect this to be mandated or at least by now superseded by a US supplied item.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
(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...
(1/n) A neat bit of thermal footage of Challenger 2 firing and driving. A couple of obvious takeaway comments on tank heat signatures:
Engine is peak sustained source of heat, particularly once underway & exhaust blooms. Its at the rear which is good for classic head on engagements, but modern all-aspect attacks mean its increasingly a concern that you can't do much to mitigate. (cgi image but representative)
Barrel once fired is a big hot spot from the front. One part of the reason for these trendy shrouds we see on concept AFV is to limit that signature (and thus far has been dismissed as until you shoot barracuda coverings are good enough, and once you have who cares anymore)
Some fervent discussion about KF51 in one of my tweets yesterday, a quick thread on the 130 mm main gun and its ammunition handling system in the KF51 concept vehicle to answer some of the question that came up.
Reminder this is a prototype vehicle still and everything is in active development and would be subject to user requirements if it gets bought by anyone. Notional data follows.
Main weapon is Rheinmetall’s new (though its almost 10 years old already – development started in 2015) 130 mm L51 smoothbore gun, often referred to as the Future Gun System (FGS).
80 years since D-Day, so I thought a (rather long, it turns out) thread of the various interesting AFV things that were around that day, and a bit of a look at what they have evolved to today as spiritual successors. #tanktwitter #dday80 #tanks
Specialist AFV are ubiquitous now, but the D-Day landings were some of the first outings for many of these capabilities or at the least cemented their utility upon which several generations have evolved since.
Actually getting onto the beach is itself a challenge, as double-digit tonne AFV are not inherently seagoing things (aside dedicated amphibians).
A brief summary🧵of the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) element of the aspirational US Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) programme. A bit of a "what they almost got" for the US Army of the late 90s and early 00s.
MGV was a common family of AFV that were bold in their vision - baseline 24 ton hull (later upped to c.30t) with hybrid drive & CRT track, loads of data & sensor fusion, a lot of automation (most variants were 2-man crews), with less passive armour and more smart solutions.
A few more details of the core base platform that the family would build on. Lots of bold capabilities that many 2020s AFV still lack, and all with the strategic benefits of a single common platform across an entire Army fleet, which are substantial.