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is that the US M1150 ABVs mount Pearson FWMP, where you'd surely expect this to be mandated or at least by now superseded by a US supplied item.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
Leopard 2's turret has changed radically in size and shape over its various developments, here some angles of the bustle getting longer and longer through a few examples (2A4, 2A5, 2SG and KF51), mainly to accommodate increased electronics
The turret face has also continuously crept forwards, contrast flat-faced 2A4 with the famous arrowhead armour from 2A5 onwards, and particularly the latest 2A7A1 where APS radars have extended it even further. Some of the more exotic prototypes also have substantial turret faces
Also width. 2A4 had quite a difference between turret width and hull width, whereas later versions have substantial additional armour packs that almost match the widths. Looking at Singapore's 2SG from above you can see the base turret and the side packs clearly.
1/n If 130 and/or 140 are to be the future calibre for the next generation of MBTs, the means of handling the new rounds need some thought. Some rambling thoughts in the form of a mini thread.
2/n The 10 mm difference in calibre between 120 and 130 mm has quite a marked impact on the overall size of the round, potentially much more than you might expect. Pictured here the Rheinmetall 130 next to a conventional 120 round.
3/n 140 is another order of magnitude. Left image the Nexter 140 as mounted to Leclerc for trials in the past few years, again compared to conventional 120 round. Right image a British 140/120 comparison.
Whilst JLTV is a good truck, I dont see how this changes anything. LIS seeks to strategically build UK land capability & industry. Changing logos on the brochure from Oshkosh to Oshkosh/Jankel, and doing lip service local work doesnt make anyone...
more likely to be able to bid a true UK in-house option next time. It doesn't make UK any better other than continuing (eg Boxer, Ajax etc) to manufacture or assemble overseas designs onshore.
I'm really firm on the view that MRVP or whatever it may reincarnate as is an open...
...goal for Army and UK industry to do something home grown as part of baby steps to a revitalised land industry. Protected utility is a reasonable target to have a domestic design and build solution.
Whereas this sort of thing is transparently so Army SRO of the day can go...
(1/n) I sadly cant be at #Eurosatory2022 this week, so a thread, largely for myself, of interesting things people are tweeting for reference/follow up #eurosatory#eurosatory22
(2/n) Rheinmetall finally unveiled the long-rumoured tracked Boxer. Many questions on this one as the week goes on, but light summary is compatibility with standard Boxer modules.
(3/n) They say mobility is "almost similar" to an IFV, which is spectacularly open to interpretation. The hull certainly looks like wheeled boxer, so assume this is a wheels to tracks modification like Stryker +Tr (pictured). Wheels and tracks have radically different core...
(1/n) Patria Nemo on a BvS10. We've spent this week saying future vehicles should be lighter, more mobile, but still protected. Something to deploy and fight with traditionally lighter forces.
UK already has a fleet for that, just its seen as purely a RM thing for some reason?
(2/n) I don't think BvS 10 has been vaguely exploited to its full potential. There are a few interesting ones around, but not enough. The aforementioned Nemo mortar, an IRIS-T SLS launcher, a recovery version, counter battery radar
(3/n) Thinking about some of the discussions this week - how fast & cheap could you develop a Brimstone launcher, basic uncrewed turret (something RT20 to RT60 or RiWP flavoured), a hooklift cargo variant? Seems to tick a lot of what we're suggesting people need to think about?
(1/n) Off the back of @thinkdefence's thoughts on LIS, a thread of a few cautionary ramblings with my old market forecast analyst hat on around the UK getting back into the military vehicles and AFV business.
2/ Quick disclaimer, LIS is actually a rather nice document for once, and the aspirations are great. This quick thread is also through the blinkered lens of vehicles and AFVs, not the full land picture LIS addresses. That out the way, on with the waffle:
3/ An important element to understand is that you can't just say "we're back in the ground vehicle game!" and start getting big wins. LIS is a strategy, and strategies are inherently long term things.