GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 899
- Points
- 960
You can update the Leo I to a 120 L44 . It's been done .
Ukraine - Superthread
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,156
- Points
- 1,040
Yup it was Ford. But GM did even more too. Ford was already building in Windsor too. Universals and CMP's.
If anyone wants a little story about Willow Run. US government paid Ford to build the plant and at the time it would be the largest plant in the world. So there was some press getting back to Washington that Ford was spending all this money and being very extravagant. They were saying Ford is building the bathrooms out of marble. Hearing this bad press the War Production Sec was ordered by the Pres to check it out. He flies out to Detroit and gets to the plant and says lets see these marble bathrooms. Before he even gets to see them, asks what the hell is going on? Ford manager reply its the war, marble we have, steel and metal we don't. OH! He then turns around and rushes back the airport and signs the check.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,156
- Points
- 1,040
Here is more to that plan.
Tell Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing and Thales....Thanks for the your missile designs...We paid for them send the data.
Call Foxcom, here make these in your new US plant. They will figure it out and the price will go down by 10's and maybe 100's per unit.
Break the iron grip of the large contractors. Tell them you can be a manufacturing or a design, engineering and testing house.
Tell Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing and Thales....Thanks for the your missile designs...We paid for them send the data.
Call Foxcom, here make these in your new US plant. They will figure it out and the price will go down by 10's and maybe 100's per unit.
Break the iron grip of the large contractors. Tell them you can be a manufacturing or a design, engineering and testing house.
- Reaction score
- 13,409
- Points
- 1,360
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,156
- Points
- 1,040
I didn't say it would work. But if you wanted to get the cost down and production up it would.
Its basically what was done in the past. The airplane OEM's were told you will give them the data and drawings. They will produce them.
I used Foxconn because if there was a company that could manufacture something that is mostly electronic like a missile it would be them. Yes I know there is the propellant and the warhead (or not on some) but its the electronic part that is the biggest price point.
It would be breaking out R&D, testing engineering etc. from production.
Then you would a real unit price and a cost of development.
Then a sustainment price.
Right now in US contracts its one big blob. with add on contracts to more confuse.
In the Canadian context the F-35 numbers were crazy all over the place. To this day there no this plane cost X. I know and understand the reasons. But do they have to be that way? Contractors like it because its hard to understand and they live by it.
Then add the Canadian budgeting system and its include a multitude of others things, the hanger, the fuel for 20 years, the engineers sandwich he eat at the meeting to discuss the timing of next meeting. I believe the Canadian system design so nothing is really purchased but jobs in program offices.
- Reaction score
- 13,409
- Points
- 1,360
I would posit that your view, while well intentioned, is unrealistic.
OEMs don’t have to sell their IP…they got smart about that decades ago. USG isn’t going to force them too, either, particularly when the USG ante’d in to a product/capability on the front end.
OEMs don’t have to sell their IP…they got smart about that decades ago. USG isn’t going to force them too, either, particularly when the USG ante’d in to a product/capability on the front end.
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Its all in the RFP and contract wording. Design and development through acceptance trials then release to DOD. They can always bid on the production contract like everybody else. Should be able to underbid competitors since they already have tooling and have worked out how to build most efficiently.
In short, I see no problem other than tradition and greed getting in the way.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 19,963
- Points
- 1,160
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,758
- Points
- 1,090
Leopard 1A6, was canceled when the cold war ended.
- Reaction score
- 13,409
- Points
- 1,360
…and at what point do you think tradition and greed will stop being factors?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,148
- Points
- 1,160
You want to produce a tank in the Leopard 1 weight range. NATO could specify weight, engine, and gun with minimum ammunition load. Plus mobility range. IP goes to the NATO, winning bid gets a big bunch of money for the design and IP, plus a fee for each tank made regardless of who makes it. The rest get paid a sum for submitting.
Pretty much all the tech is already known. The design is updated every 10 years with newer FCS/optics and X numbers are built to trial it.
- Reaction score
- 13,409
- Points
- 1,360
. I don’t work in that industry, so I don’t know how NATO or Tank OEMs do things. I do know aerospace and I maintain that I would be very surprised the day that Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Northrop, Textron, etc. acquiesced and said, “sure, here’s the IP, off you go and manufacture things at a third party…” Particularly a small insignificant country like Canada trying to muscle any of those companies around?? Yeah, right.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 19,963
- Points
- 1,160
5-10,000 Leopard 2s for NATO might be a good idea, with a healthy distribution of manufacturing facilities around Europe, under license, to help ensure supply chain survivability etc.
Like their whack job new rifles, the Yanks can swan around on their unicorn M1s all by themselves
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Need a hovertank then weight class and transport trailers and mud season won't matter.
Bolo enters the chat. 83 years old now
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Fixed. (Too much military sci-fi detritus in my brain)
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Ukraine has said it will spend nearly $550 million on drones in 2023 and has set up drone assault units within its armed forces
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JRYRYMJJRFLUZHREXL4IEWQFA4.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Inside Ukraine’s scramble for “game-changer” drone fleet
At an unassuming industrial estate in northern Ukraine, two former Microsoft executives and a team of engineers are producing military drones that can travel over long distances and carry large payloads.
www.reuters.com
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,148
- Points
- 1,160
More like the Koren K2, they would be happy with that and not to worried as to whom you kill with them.5-10,000 Leopard 2s for NATO might be a good idea, with a healthy distribution of manufacturing facilities around Europe, under license, to help ensure supply chain survivability etc.
Like their whack job new rifles, the Yanks can swan around on their unicorn M1s all by themselves
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,156
- Points
- 1,040
Yes you're right.
I do know aerospace and I maintain that I would be very surprised the day that Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Northrop, Textron, etc. acquiesced and said, “sure, here’s the IP, off you go and manufacture things at a third party…” Particularly a small insignificant country like Canada trying to muscle any of those companies around?? Yeah, right.
But the US did just pull the option I was talking about. The JLTV was pulled from the developer Oshkosh and given to AM General on cost.
I wish they would do it in Aerospace too. I'm talking US. The US pays everything the R&D engineering etc. In theory they could say to Lockheed give the data to Boeing and have them build it. The political fallout would be huge. Plus I doubt Boeing would agree as they would not like it to happen to them.
I see the problem as very poor contract management. The contractors are getting the best if both worlds. It should be the government pays for the development and can do what they what they with it. Like bid the manufacturing phase to the lowest bidder. Or the companies develop on their dime and charge what they want for the unit.
Right now the contractors bid basically a idea or prototype and hope for a win. Then after winning they know it's almost an open checkbook.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,148
- Points
- 1,160
It would be for NATO and since your going for a basic tank, with existing gun and engine, there will not be so many IP issues as there with the software driven aircraft issues.
I do know aerospace and I maintain that I would be very surprised the day that Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Northrop, Textron, etc. acquiesced and said, “sure, here’s the IP, off you go and manufacture things at a third party…” Particularly a small insignificant country like Canada trying to muscle any of those companies around?? Yeah, right.
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 810
- Points
- 960
Leopard 1 production ended 1984, meaning the newest models are now 40 years old. Replacing the main gun won't change that, nor will it increase the number of hulls, which means combat losses will be difficult to sustain. An all new design using lessons from both the Leopard 1 and M60 and armed with at least the L7/M68 would be the way to go.
The 1A6 was cancelled because the Leopard 2 was starting production and the Germans felt it made more sense to focus on the new design.
The Leopard 1 also had much lighter armour than the M60 (rumour has it we didn't deploy ours in the Gulf War for that reason, meanwhile the 1st Marine Division liberated Kuwait International Airport in M60A1s).
On another note, there are several lights tank designs using a NATO 105mm gun. There's General Dynamics' Griffin II recently selected by the US Army and the M8 Armoured Gun System (originally by FMC, now owned by BAE Systems) which lost to the Griffin (both use the same M35 gun), and the Textron Stingray which uses the L7 and is currently in service with Thailand. These may be viable as export models in lieu of a modern medium tank.
Similar threads
