Funding is being made available for innovative proposals covering integration of composites, adhesives for structural joining, joining high temperature structures and improving armour systems.
According to a news release, nine teams of partners across both nations have received Phase 2 funding worth a total of £1.48 million from the UK and Australian governments to develop innovative proposals covering integration of composites, adhesives for structural joining, joining high temperature structures and improving armour systems.
In the UK successful consortia are:
- Foresight Innovations Limited, Hephaestus Consulting, Nottingham Trent University and Matrix Composites
- TWI Limited
- University of Surrey and QinetiQ
- Zentraxa Limited and QinetiQ Australia
Successful Australian teams are:
- Western Sydney University, Imperial College London, Metrologi Pty Ltd, UNSW and AirBus Australia Pacific
- Qinetiq Australia Pty Ltd and RMIT
- University of New South Wales, Imperial College London, Advanced Composite Structures Australia Pty Ltd
- University of Adelaide, Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL – France) and Materials Science Institute
RMIT University and BAE Systems Pty Ltd
The Ministry of Defence add that defence research and development ties between the UK and Australia “are already strong, but have been strengthened further under this bilateral international programme to accelerate the integration of advanced materials into military platforms”.
The UK’s Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin MP, said:
“The UK and Australia have an enduring defence relationship. As we take on a range of new challenges, I am delighted we will be working together to ensure our personnel are armed with the most advanced technologies. These joint challenge projects represent both countries’ innovative visions for the future, whilst supporting our academic and industry partners.”
Australian Minister for Defence Industry, Melissa Price, said:
“These joint challenge projects have not only strengthened our bilateral defence relationship but provide support to each country’s respective defence industries to overcome capability challenges we face. Academic and industry partners are vitally important to both defence forces. Through the Next Generation Technologies Fund the Australian Government is committed to providing the best capability possible to the men and women who serve our nation.”
The Joint Effort gives both nations access to international research using a total pooled fund of around £2.52 million from the two phases of the competition so far.
The new projects start in the financial year 2020/21 and run for up to two years.
1.5 million! Steady on there, not made of money.
Rather a more conservative approach to funding over spaffing tens of billions into the military industrial complex
Yeap, I still struggle to understand why we paid LM £500m to integrate a new Turret on 6 Warrior test vehicles for evaluation and who are expecting a further £1bn to upgrade 250 beat up old vehicles. I doubt Rheinmetall spent anywhere near that manufacturing the Lynx 41 and delivering 3 of them to Australia for testing and evaluation. The Czech’s are paying £1.68bn for 210 Lynx 41 and they will be in service long before Warrior LEP vehicles. I beat our soldiers feel great when they go on joint exercises and compare their 40 year old equipment with their… Read more »
Don’t think the age hardened aluminium hulls will last with the CTA’s 20,000 lbs of recoil, should change gun to bushmaster!
Looked it up recoil of bushmaster 30 mm 6,500 lbs, no turret wobble problems with this gun!
As we were discussing on a different thread BB, Warrior and Chally2 upgrades are tied together and seem to be driven more by the DTI, rather than actual needs. Typical UK tail wagging the dog procurement. I await the Defence review with interest. Strong suggestions appear to be pointing towards a final withdrawal from heavy armoured warfare and a completion of the long pivot back towards expeditionary light deployable forces. The QE class carriers are the cornerstone of expeditionary warfare and we need well equipped light forces and transport assets ( Navy/Airforce) to complete the transition. Let the Germans and… Read more »
Interesting. Possible early signs of a collaborative MBT project? The Aussies M1A1s are even longer in the tooth than our C2s
The Aussies will upgrade their Abrams to the SepV3 version before they embark on a new MBT project with the UK, neither of which country can afford to do so.
I don’t buy that. If the UK can’t afford an MBT programme, then nor can France. Yet France are. Get a few international partners onboard and the UK and Aus could definitely make an attractive proposal for an MBT
There is already an active funded project here in Oz to upgrade and expand the size of the M1 fleet to the most recent US Army version as well as a variety of other vehicles based on the M1 chassis.
Separately there is a project planned to start in the early to mid 2030s for replacement with a new tank.
That project has a budget allowance of up to A$11.9b.
Cheers,
That just about lines up with my speculation then. Cheers mate
A budget allowance for a program to start in the mid 2030s, fifteen years away. Yeah, right.
Why exactly do you seem to take delight in putting down other countries’ militaries?
It’s clearly judging by the amount made available early and initial research projects to examine possible technologies/materials that can be exploited, not much will likely if anything at all, be ready for commercial exploitation in less than 8 to 10 years most like. Unless you do speculative research in such things well before projects to exploit them actually get on or indeed off the drawing board they have no chance to be included. Just to illustrate the fuel cell had been around nearly a century before a programme came al g to make it useful, practical and indeed essential for… Read more »
At the present level of defense expenditure, less than 2% of GDP, the UK cannot afford to fund a new MBT and still maintain its other requirements. That’s reality. In a choice between collaborating with the US or the UK on a new MBT, assuming there will be one, Australia will elect to partner with the US. The US is a Pacific power, the UK isn’t. The UK failed Australia in WW2, the US didn’t.
“Australia will elect to partner with the US”
This is the only partially correct thing in all that you said. Of course the US would likely be a senior partner in any non-European western MBT project.
The rest is bait and nonsense, yawn
Indeed it’s easy to rewrite history, military cooperation on the other hand is more about practicalities and cost and Australia’s isn’t about home grown MBTs navy and air assets are where their priorities sensibly lie for home grown investment for the foreseeable future.
hmmmm been watching bbc America for your info ? ?
Heres the low down man …….20 Billion in new currency allocated for HM armed forces over next 4 years . Unless you sit on the MOD procurement committee then you haven’t the foggiest about what we can and cannot afford ?
??????????
Ignore PK he seems to have a inferior complex with UK, I think his long lost dad was a one night stand British squaddie.
? it was really the spelling of defence with an S that got my back up absolutely no need for dafty yank bastardisation of HM’s written word
lol
Correct…..methinks one day he thought he was a little tough, talked when he should have listened, and got put on his overweight maccy Ds arse by a Brit squaddie….
lol!!
Hang on you mean when Britain was months or even weeks from invasion? An invasion by the way had it happened would have left Australia a sitting duck for an Earlier Japanese invasion of Australia. Meanwhile if American help had been available at all in that instance debatable as the US would have been faced with a somewhat different and far more crippling scenario itself to respond to, would only have happened at all for its own defence certainly not for any consideration for Australia. However in that scenario with South East Asia a lost cause one doubts that the… Read more »
Lol PK you’re warped wrong view of actual WW2 history events I’d say has let you down but considering you are a Trumpski supporter its no surprise your ignorance to actual facts on anything trumptardr, oh and remember this it was the British that defeated the Italian navy and the main German fleet not the US navy. swings and roundabouts trumptard.
Dave I’m with you on your excellent pointing out that the RN defeated the axis fleets in the Med ?? I love a bit of history man but bashing pkcasimir on his support of Mr T I cannot endorse ❌??⛔️ the dream ticket for 2024 25 period is Mr T ??and The AI cryogenically unfrozen Mrs T ????
you lefties will be crying into your sustainable mochachino soy latte’s when the Whitehoose?and No.10 are brought back into a more Inspector Harry Callaghan style of governance??
????????????
Fair enough Loss Pollos ,we will have to agree to disagree on Trumpski, but dont put with the lefties I’m purely center on my politics:)
Indeed man I was only having a wee laugh with the leftie jibe? I know you aren’t one them looney tunes ?? . I have no probs with anyone voting Jimmy Carter ??
Although I need to warn you those that tread the middle of the road get run over from both directions ?
?????????
The chip on the shoulder must be getting very heavy. Come on son, your continued feeling that you must belittle others, to make yourself feel better is quite sad and immature. And the fact your opinon becomes a “fact” also a little sad.
It’s not that we can’t afford it on our own but it doesn’t make any sense if it won’t win any exports. Any future program needs Poland, Sweden and Italy to have any hope of reaching 1,000 units and I’m pretty sure France and Germany will bring them into their program unless France insists on ordering 10% for 70% workshare.
Fact is even if we do build one it will be designed and built by
Rheinmetall which would only be a version of the European offering More likely we will go American next time in which case maybe there will be UK Aus collaboration within that offering and why most like both countries want tech they can offer to get a better deal or home grown tech involved not u like the F35 project no doubt.
It is interesting as we will have a large UK footprint for GDUK and Rheinmetall following Boxer and Ajax so I guess we could go either way if we join a US or German MBT program. I don’t see the UK wanting to be a front running in either project though as we do need to keep the focus on medium armour capabilities so that we can actually deploy them. Boxer, Indirect fire and the MRVP program should all take priority over heavy investments in a new MBT.
Rubbish PK,I see you still are sitting on that nation superpower, high horse lol!!!!
M1A1 was chosen over the later M1A2 as we do not want our soldiers to glow in the dark with the assistance of Depleted Uranium , having said that as an Australian what could we bring to the country that gave the World CHOBM ?
Besides our boys are infantry , it is what every little Ozzy is brought up to do , glorified chauffeurs driving Tanks and Choppers are what our English cousins are best suited for to get us where the action is . Has been that way since Bullecourt
What about the Nuclear Centurion that was used during trials, then went on to fight in Vietnam? At least it will keep you warm on chilly nights….l
Mark Feltons youtube channel does some good stories on many subjects, and thats one of them mate.
Mate, have a read of this site, it gives a bit more background info on the test in 1953. Pretty much a brand new Centurion Mk3, parked with engine running etc 500 yards from the epi centre. The nuke was quite small at 9kt, but it was a fission device, normally quite dirty and gamma heavy. There is very little information on the crew who went back to it, refuelled it started it up then drove it most of the way back to camp before the engine failed. However, there is a sad tail, that some of the mechanics who… Read more »
Nuts.
Try this:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-atomic-tank-survived-a-nuclear-test-then-went-to-w-1542451635
Cheers mate, most interesting.
Light attack tanks driving fast thanks to non-DU weapons may not need so much armour and I recommend following US lead on this https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/16/army-seeking-firms-build-highly-mobile-light-tanks-infantry-brigades.html
(and I have also seen veeeery fast German tanks… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZKubQZf8sE “sports car” thanks to non-DU weapons)
CANZUK rising