I know what you mean, I’m talking about the CR 3 ATD. The Germans, especially Rheinmetall aren’t going to be that shitty and stingy on their quality of marketing
1 Like
on the actual pre production variants they are named from P1 to P8. P1-P2 have more square cheeks(pretty sure the one in the picture is P1 while it still didnt have the roof composite added) while P3-P4 cheeks are sharper n angled at the transition from front to sides.
P4 was the one seen using the new LFP module n possibly the new composite sideskirt addons
1 Like
im pretty sure P5-P8 are either still to be made or just not taken pics of just yet
Yeah you’re right, I guess they could call them that, it just depends how easy it is to find info on which one is which
1 Like
Please dont give them ideas. Otherwise we are going to have 8x CR3Ps to grind through with minor differences
3 Likes
the more the merrier, as long as they’re foldered
wanna trade? germany wants more leopards, but we arent getting them
1 Like
sorry I’m late to the party but I’m fairly sure the TD was used in the CR3 announcement and marketing stuff as the “Challenger 3” without Trophy being mounted
leaving this here
https://x.com/TotherChris/status/1996530399141302523?s=20
⚙️ We can infer a great deal from the Question on Challenger 3 (CR3) timelines made in Parliament this week.
The key phrase in the answer is 💬 “securing the necessary materials” and “mitigating risk”.
Allow me to translate.
In a new-build, materials have been sourced at this point in a programme.
“Securing materials” is a phrase that also been used in the context of Type 23 and Nimrod MRA.4 this far down a programme involving significant refurb.
It likely means Challenger 2 hulls.
The numbers and state that the hull supplier has to work with must be low and poor condition.
“Mitigating risk” is another phrase used previously, this time in context of the MAA referring to the lack of CAD documentation for MRA.4 fuselages and necessitating a Risk Reduction exercise.
It likely means the CR2 hulls are pre-CAD in the modern sense and likely sport unique differences or tolerances hull-to-hull, due to a lack of precision manufacture in the late 80’s / early 90’s era tooling.
We can combine this inference with news coming out of Curtiss-Wright on contract modifications from Rheinmetall related to the Turret Drive Servo System (TDSS).
It likely means the pre-CAD era non-precision CR2 hulls being refurbished have unique turret rings, or rings with a greater than expected tolerance, requiring individual fitting.
Personal opinion is CR3 will also need a “come to Jesus” moment of self reflection, and source a new-design / precision-built hull before we dive too far down the turret ring rabbit hole and carry on struggling with coach-built era MBT’s for the next 20-30 years.
[ @UKDefJournal
article in Reply]
That is certainly a reach if I’ve seen one
no idea, about reliability of british armor guys and there opinions.
only sharing what pops up, i didnt see the parlament thingy being shared here yet
AI ass writing style too lmao
1 Like
Yeah, that’s quite a few dashes in that statement. The writing style just seems odd overall tbh.
The UK defence journal has been pumping out a lot of slop recently, I honestly think they’ve just started AI generating their articles
1 Like