Citing a letter to the Economy Ministry, local media outlet Spiegel said Rheinmetall intends to sue the German government for loss of revenue if the suspension continues.

Spiegel said Rheinmetall believes it can claim for compensation because the government’s decision affected exports that had already been approved.

The news outlet also said that goods worth up to 2 billion euros ($2.3 billion) are affected by the export suspension, including four Cobra radar systems built by a consortium that includes France’s Thales, Airbus and Lockheed Martin of the United States.

Last week however the German Economy Ministry said the government still had no intention of approving arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

German politicians are reportedly becoming increasingly uneasy with the nations relationship with Saudi Arabia after the killing of journalist Mr Khashoggi.

Recently, Rheinmetall and BAE Systems announced that they have signed an agreement to create a joint UK based military vehicle design, manufacturing and support business.

Rheinmetall will purchase a 55% stake in the existing BAE Systems UK based combat vehicles business, with BAE Systems retaining 45%.

The firms say that the establishment of the new Joint Venture is subject to regulatory approvals which are anticipated to be completed in the first half of 2019.

“Once the approvals have been completed, the Joint Venture will be known as Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). In addition to managing and growing the existing combat vehicle support business, the intent is for the new Joint Venture to play a major role in the delivery of the British Army’s new Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) and other strategic combat vehicles programmes.”

Jennifer Osbaldestin, Managing Director of BAE Systems Land UK business, said:
“We are committed to evolving our combat vehicles business so that we better serve our customers’ future interests. Joining forces with Rheinmetall in the UK provides renewed purpose for our vehicles business and allows us to deliver products, services and technology that help land forces excel in their vital roles.
We look forward to working together to ensure the Joint Venture is a trusted supplier to the British Army and our international customers.”
The new Joint Venture will be headquartered at BAE Systems’ facility in Telford, England.

23
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

So will we see a joint BAE/Rheinmetall venture for a Chally upgrade?

Sean

So if they move manufacturing to the U.K. that would presumably circumvent the German government’s foreign arms sales restrictions…?

Harry Bulpit

Interesting

Elliott

Not really. German arms export laws are the most complicated ones on Earth. They are so Byzantine their one of the primary reasons they lose export deals. The German Government has in the past 10 years gotten into both protracted criminal and civil legal battles with their small arms manufacturers, artillery manufacturers, and their armor factories. See German arms law sees both manufacturing and export of finished arms the same legally as licensed produced equipment. Meaning even if it wasn’t made in Germany the company still has to provide end user certificates on EACH unit, acquire export licenses years after… Read more »

Elliott

Arms dealer.

MattG

This is of course the driver for the UK based joint venture with BAE.

captain P Wash.

It’s all falling apart.

What is that SPG in the photo?

GCT 155mm

Ta Steve.

Steve

Good for the Germans taking a stand on this. Whilst I suspect they will cave, I would have liked to see the UK doing the same. Saudi actions were unforgivable in modern society and yet they now know they can get away with it whenever they like, the west is too scared of losing thier oil to take a stand.

In ‘modern society’? Their ‘society’ is not our ‘society’.

Steve

I’m sorry what they did doesn’t fit any form of civilized society. They way of life is different, but doesn’t excuse them. I am not proposing invading them, I am proposing we choose better who we supply arms to and don’t sell to countries that have terrible human rights or those that use it to suppress their people. Money should not be the only element to who we choose to do business with as a country.

Have a look at this link to the Matsimus Youtube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0p_Rr6gUtM

It describes why the M1 and Leopard use boxy shaped turrets whilst the Chally uses a sloped turret. Does explain quite a few things, especially regarding armours effectiveness against FIN rounds.

Elliott

Abrams turret is sloped at a angle as is every Leopard after A5 and up.

Correct, however the Leopard 2A5 and up still use the flat upright boxy construction, for the turret, behind the arrow shaped front section. You can think of the front armour as applique, as it is literally bolts to the upright armour behind it. It is a very hard steel with a massive air gap before the original upright armour.
The M1 series front turret armour only slopes 20 degrees from the vertical. So from a FIN rounds perspective is near enough a vertical plate.

Elliott

Are the walls to your house at a vertical 90° or 70° or 110°? Because you would notice a difference immediately. Please tell me your not a builder or welder I would weep for both your boss and customer. 20 degrees from vertical is plenty deflect a sabot considering the thickness and hardeness of the armor and that as with most modern tanks the outer angle has little to do with the composite armor layers that are put at differing layers to each other at different angles. Plus add to the amount of angle the amount of oblique presentation a… Read more »

I agree, but watch the video. It explains why the Russian tanks have always favoured a rounded turret and why NATO tanks are more “blocky”. Russian tank rounds are designed to deal with the more upright style of armour, whilst NATO rounds are designed to deal with the curved Russian turrets. It’s all to do with composition and design of the FIN (APFSDS) round, but also the length of the penetrator rod (tungsten carbide/depleted uranium) to armour ratio. Sloped armour is easier for long rod FIN rounds to pass through compared to more upright armour arrays. The guys doing the… Read more »

BV Buster

Elliot: “Head on direct face to face shots are for the target range” Yes and no, you always keep the enemy in your 45s (or 800s if you’re being technical) by updating your gunner on the direction of enemy threat, if you pull into a position you turn your hull and turret towards the enemy. What confuses people are games like World of Tanks where it’s just a free for all, there is no battle grouping and no one covering your flank so people tend to get hit from the sides way more than in real life. Does it still… Read more »

BV Buster

Good Vid, It’s great kids are getting into this sort of stuff now, we will have an entire generation of tank geeks coming through. If you told me 5 years ago that there will be a Youtube video on this subject I would have said you were mental.

BV

BB85

His channel is struggling at the min though. Youtube demonetised him and told him to take down a lot of content because he could not prove he was the original owner of some of the video content. They only like lefty virtue signalling channels who want to mould you to think the way they do.

BV Buster

That’s a shame, he clearly put a lot of work into it. I’m interested in where he gets his information from, it must be hard doing research on a subject like this, especially if you’re outside the industry.

BV

Standard principles of sloped armour being “thicker” and thus better than flat armour. Also Challenger 2 has Dorchester armour M1A2 and Leopard 2 have Cobham armour. Cobham being a generation behind the excellent materials science of Dorchester armour.