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.

(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.

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.

(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?

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.

(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)

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.

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.

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 long-requested (long) overview of the UK’s wheeled vehicle strategy – the Land Mobility Programme (LMP) and Boxer Strategic Pipeline (BSP).
Its actually rather good as a plan, being well considered, framed in reality and funded. Well done Army! So, broad strokes. LMP and BSP form a full spectrum of wheeled vehicle capability for the Army. LMP comprises three strands – Light Utility, Light Protected Mobility, and Medium Protected Mobility. Boxer sits above as a de-facto Heavy Protected Mobility of sorts

1/ 2024 is shaping up to be a bit of a year of the Leopard, a brief summary of plans afoot to make even more Leopard 2 users and variants a reality, which is always a good thing.
An open-ended, non-exhaustive list of actual & speculative users going on as of February 2024: 2/ 🇮🇹 Italy: Leopard 2A8
The Italians are looking at a medium-term successor to the Ariete (pictured), despite that tank still being in the midst of an MLU, with long term aspirations to join MGCS (or whatever emerges when it finally gives up).

1/ Japan's Future Amphibious Technology Research (FAT-R). The oft-overlooked work to really push the envelope of AAV tech that is actually making some great strides in the background.

A short summary 🧵 2/ A quick background of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). Since the DUKW and LVT in the 1940s, there has been a niche for AFV capable of swimming when afloat and transitioning to land movement seamlessly to transport and support an opposed landing and inland movement.

1/ A short summary of 🇪🇸's Leopard 2E upgrade plans.

Spain bought 219 Leopard 2E (local name Leopardo 2E), which are broadly speaking a 2A6 analogue with the Strv 122/2A6HEL roof armour and some unique to Spain C4 gear (LINCE BMS, Indra licence-built TI optics etc) 2/ The initial plan was to manage obsolescence and reduce some of the maintenance burden - in recent years the training has been curtailed simply because funding for spares and consumables wasn't there, so they are rather keen to minimise outdated elements.

1/ UKs Challenger 3 prototype now a real steel bit of kit, going into trials within the next few weeks. Imagery from #IAV2024 courtesy of @Janes own @Rivet_Counter

A few of the usual objections/critiques/comments flying around on twitter this week - a mini thread of responses to 2/ The design remains unchanged at the overall design level from that which I summarised 3 years ago at contract award in this thread:

https://x.com/JonHawkes275/status/1372838722027261955?s=20

1/ A much requested 🧵 thread on the confused and misunderstood topic of Challenger 2/3’s engine and just how many horses are, or can be fit under the deck of these tanks. Short answer – there is no 1,500 hp uplift for CR2 or CR3. 2/ There *could* be a lift to 1,500 hp but there are major technical obstacles and there is no intent to do it. There is be a mid-ground to be found that is being looked at outside committed programmes.

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on turning circles

TLDR: tracked AFV have better capabilities for turning, even when both vehicle types can do neutral turns, which the vast majority of wheeled AFV cannot 2/ Missed the start of this (increasingly large…) mini-series of threads? Start over here:

https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1605498464002904065?s=20&t=AIZhVT6BbUs7BXTby0ov_w

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on approach and departure angles.

TLDR: tracked vehicles broadly have better capabilities for approach, departure, belly/ramp and tilt angles. 2/ Missed the start of this (increasingly large…) mini-series of threads? Start over here:

https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1605498464002904065?s=20&t=AIZhVT6BbUs7BXTby0ov_w

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on the ability to negotiate obstacles.

TLDR: wheeled vehicles can more easily achieve higher ground clearances but they struggle more with obstacles once contact is made than tracks do 2/ If you want to start at the beginning, this mini-series started here:

https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1605498464002904065?s=20&t=U_Ql8V7yvVRc5AdJmCwQ4A

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with another on the ability to negotiate trenches.

TLDR: tracks are better at trench crossing than wheels, and for wheels the fewer the # axles, the worse it gets. 2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on the ability to negotiate obstacles.

TLDR: tracks are generally better at obstacle negotiation whether natural or man made. 2/ This part of the series on obstacle crossing got wildly out of hand (about 140 tweets) so I've broken it into further mini-threads. This first one is step climbing.

1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, starting with one on comparative design efficiency, in terms of volume.

TLDR: tracks are inherently more compact configurations allowing lower & more efficient profiles for the same internal volume 2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.