Yeah that would fit with what I was pondering in my head a lighter, lower and faster vehicle makes more sense as a scout rather than a Warrior Clone and allies use it as well as oh look a Scout. Also if we have someone with some experience suggesting it then yup that just about convinces me that there is sense behind it.

In that case Nicholas I defer to your superior knowledge and experience :-)

In 1984 I was on my first Gulf cruise on HMS Hermione, during the ‘tanker wars’ – escorting big oil through the straits of hormuz, strangely enough Iran was the threat back then, so I guess some things dont change …. ahhh happy days (he says staring out of the 16th floor office window at the rain falling on Toronto… sigh…)

Jed,

I was a Recce Platoon Commander in 1WG and among the first platoons to convert to Scimitars used by armoured infantry battalions in BAOR. I knew the CVR(T) family backwards. At that time, 1984, doctrine was somewhat fluid. There was a feeling that if the Soviet hordes invaded, we’d go nuclear within 48 hours. Anyway, for all its merits, we spent so much time on vehicle maintenance that any kind of sneaky recce activity was largely curtailed, hence the comments about the Fennek.

While you’re right about where the Germans are in Afghanistan and the roles they have taken on, Angela Merkel knows that hundreds of German soldiers dying would be political disaster. So, the German Government has had a large say in dictating what vehicles they use. I know that the Germans think we are insane for using the Jackal, which offers no overhead protection. They also think we’re wasted money buying the Mastiff, because, despite its superior IED protection, it is so heavy that axles frequently get broken on the terrible roads. So a large proportion of the usable fleet is off the road at any one time.

I think it is madness that we rejected the Boxer six years ago, and now look as if we’ll buy it off-the-shelf if and when when we decide we can afford it. I am sure the FRES Utility Vehicle will arrive the very week after the last troops return from Afghanistan.

Sorry, no idea what an appurtance is, but it should have been acquaintances !

Nicholas said: “Germany has been in Afghanistan from the start. So far only 36 German soldiers have returned home in body bags. Why is it that they get their vehicles so right when we get them so wrong?”

Nothing to do with vehicles, everything to do with where the Germans are, and what roles they have taken on.

On the Recce front – where you a Recce Platoon Commander or an Infantry Platoon Commander who worked with CVR(T) ?

There is room for Fennek – the Dutch have just introduced their version to Afghanistan (after some upgrades) which I am sure they would not have done if it was a potential deathtrap. But as per the discussion below, when you ask why we gravitate towards a medium weight, medium auto-cannon equiped IFV for Recce, instead of long slung, wheeled sneaky beaky vehicles, we are back to the discussion about doctrine.

My father undertook ‘recce’ with the ‘Blues’ (Household Calvary) missions in Korea in a Centurion ! Not very sneeky…. :-)

I have appurtenances who have undertaken ‘long range recce’ in the desert in soft skinned Landrovers.

So there is room for all sorts of solutions – but would the Fennek really be a suitable replacement for CVR(T)- I don’t know.

As a former British Army Platoon Commander who used CVR(T) Scimitar when I was posted in BAOR back in the 80s, I have to say that a replacement is well overdue.

However, I think that both the CV90 and ASCOD vehicles represent a compromised choice. As the excellent feedback below states, they are big, high armoured personnel carriers built on an old chassis instead of being a sleek, ‘low signature’ state of the art reconnaissance vehicles. The most damning thing about them, however, is that neither offers the level of IED protection needed in Afghanistan. Given that FRES SV vehicles will almost certainly be deployed to that region, what are we playing at?

If we’re definitely wedded to a tracked vehicle with a medium gun, then the German PUMA would be a better bet. It has excellent protection, but also excellent mobility. The CTA 40 mm gun turret could easily be fitted to this chassis.

My father, also a Recce Troop Commander in his day, always believed that wheeled vehicles were fine for the job. This obsession for fielding light tanks inevitably seems to result in big signature AFVs. I agree.

I actually think we should buy the German FENNEK. This is a proper reconnaissance vehicle. Although wheeled, it is very agile across country. With a 3-man crew, it is small with a low silhouette. Armed with either a 12.7 mm HMG or 40 mm Grenade launcher for self-defence, it lets the crew focus on observation instead of getting involved in the battle. As soon as you try to perform a role like mobile reserve or flank guard, you compromise your primary function: being the eyes and ears of the Battle Group. Crucially, the FENNEK has excellent mine/ IED protection, while its low flat roofline makes it a difficult target to engage. Given KMW’s applique armour system, it may possibly have better armour protection than either the CV90 or ASCOD.

Going back to FRES, Germany will soon deploy the BOXER to Afghanistan. We pulled out of the partnership to develop this vehicle, because it wasn’t air transportable in a C130 Hercules. When it arrives in Afghanistan later this year, BOXER will give the German Army better protection and mobility than anything we have or will deploy within the next 5 years.

Germany has been in Afghanistan from the start. So far only 36 German soldiers have returned home in body bags. Why is it that they get their vehicles so right when we get them so wrong?

IanB not a bad idea to be honest however do we really need that extra capability when we should have vehicle mounted and dismounted Starstreak for the really short ranged air defence. It’ll still be extra cost even although insignificant and it’s a somewhat unneeded addition in my opinion.

I hope the CV90 wins because there might be the chance of getting some CV9040 AAV turrets suitably modified to take the 40mm CTW to provide us with organic air cover without the MOD bleating about non-standard weapons and its assoc logistics. But pigs…

The Financial Times reported that General Dynamics was selected as winner of the contract. Not by the Army, who prefers CV90, but by the Treasury. Sincerely, i so hope it is not true. First of all, because the CV90 is truly the best answer to the army’s requirement. It has been stated that it is “three years ahead of GD’s contender as of development”. And it is true. The CV90 SV has been on trials, proved and presented to the public. What is known of the ASCOD2 derivative from General Dynamics?
Pretty much nothing. There’s not an image, there’s not specifications… on the internet there’s very little about it. I don’t even know how the competition could be ran, since pretty much there’s an ASCOD2 IFV (in service with Spain as Pizarro and in Austria as Ulan) against a CV90 in Scout outfit.
The ASCOD SV is still just on paper… and choose it seems absurd to me.

I hope CV90 is chosen at the end of the day. As to Javelin missiles, they can be fit if needed, i think.

Great thoughts out there, but can I inject a couple of notes of realism. First SEP was a wonderful dream, a Lotus of a car, and you know what LOTUS stands for. Our Army has trouble fielding the existing kit, we were short of Techs for the relatively simple ECM kit we fitted for Iraq and Afghan. Where would all the clever knob twiddlers come from for an electric drive all singing, all dancing, one off unproven concept car come from? Ever wonder why little ships still use deisel? because its reliable and every spanner passer can fix it. So knock out the clever volts stuff if it means the fuse blowing can kill your ability to run away bravely.
Second the Warrior 2000 was streets ahead of CV 90, and still would be if Alvis had not been landed with a factory in Sweden it cannot close. SO British jobs go to Sweden because the factory has to churn out relatively unproven vehicles. Thats why Switzerland wound up with it and Holland. No one put the Warrior 2000 forward for Holland even though the Dutch asked for it.
BAE will not get the vehicle order because it wont be a British built one. GD would at least get it built here, would mean a few jobs. Whether our special relationship will mean we get shafted on the technologies a la F35, well we stuffed without Sams airlift anyway

Anyone have upodates on the following news item? Says that the GD UK ASCOD is the likely winner …

U.K. Panel Likely To Pick Builders of FRES, Warrior

By andrew chuter
Published: 24 Feb 2010 14:02

LONDON – The British Ministry of Defence’s powerful Investment Approvals Board (IAB) is scheduled to meet Feb. 25, with the key item on the agenda likely to be selection of contractors to supply the British Army with two major new armored fighting vehicle capabilities.

Together, the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) Specialist Vehicles (SV) program and a significant makeover for the in-service Warrior infantry fighting vehicle could eventually be worth up to 5 billion pounds ($7.7 billion) to the winning contractors so long as the programs are not blown off course by the black hole in government finances and an upcoming strategic defense review.

The contest pits BAE Systems against U.S.-based General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin in competitions which will help dictate the future shape of the British-based company’s armored fighting vehicle sector.

BAE is offering its CV90 against General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD SV vehicle fitted with a Lockheed Martin UK turret designed especially for the FRES requirement.

For the Warrior Capability Sustainment program, BAE finds itself competing head-to-head against Lockheed Martin UK.

The IAB – which includes top scientific, military, procurement and finance officials – will be considering recommendations endorsed Feb. 9 by the investment board of the MoD’s procurement arm, the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organization.

The recommendations remain for the moment a closely held secret by the MoD. Although the Sunday Express newspaper here recently quoted sources saying General Dynamics had secured the FRES SV bid, that has not been confirmed.

Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davies told Parliament earlier this week that he would announce winners of the FRES and Warrior bids “once the assessment is complete and the investment decision approved.”

If approved by the IAB, the recommendations will then pass to various government departments for signing off.

To help smooth the approvals process, the Treasury, unusually, embedded officials in the project teams leading the DE&S procurement effort.

Davies has previously said he will announce the decision next month. Failure to meet that timetable could see at least one of the programs delayed or eventually canceled. The U.K. government has been racing to select contractors for the two programs ahead of a general election being called, most likely for early May.

A roughly six-week period of purdah, when no new or controversial equipment purchases or other initiatives can be announced by the government, comes into force during the pre-election period.

With all three major political parties saying they will hold a strategic defense review immediately following the election, that could further delay progress on the vehicle programs.

Most industry executives here reckon the program to upgrade nearly 450 Warriors with a new turret and gun, plus improvements to the electronic architecture and a new armored system, is the least likely to be impacted by the need to cut the already overheated equipment budget.

They are less certain, though, about the fate of the FRES program. Although they say they have so far seen no evidence of a government weakening in its intention to pursue the project, concerns about the future timing and scope remain.

A project to buy the Piranha five-wheeled vehicle from General Dynamics as the utility element of the FRES requirement was axed by the MoD after it failed to agree on terms with its preferred contractor. The MoD also had a change of heart regarding its immediate priorities after it acquired large numbers of mine-protected patrol vehicles as urgent operational requirements for Afghanistan.

The FRES SV contract is to provide a common platform for what could eventually be a fleet of more than 1,000 specialist vehicles covering roles which include scout, command and control, direct fire and ambulances.

The initial deal, though, is for the design and development, but not production, of a group of FRES SV vehicles known as Recce Block 1.

The priority is to replace the Army’s existing CVR(T) scout vehicles with a new machine fitted with the CTA International’s new case-telescoped 40mm cannon.

CTA International is the BAE/Nexter joint venture mandated by the U.K. government to supply its weapon system for the FRES scout and the Warrior upgrade.

The CVR(T) is on its last legs and the Army is desperate to replace it as soon as possible. The intention is to purchase 245 FRES scout vehicles along with recovery, repair and protected mobility machines with an in-service date of 2015.

Recce Blocks 2 and 3 and a medium armor direct-fire vehicle would follow. The FRES program as it stands is completed by future requirements for a wheeled utility vehicle and maneuver-support vehicles.

All three companies in the two competitions have inked deals with the Defense Support Group for various degrees of production and assembly following the government’s publication last year of an armored vehicles strategy which put the state-owned contractor at the center of its sustainability plans for the sectors.

Euan / Jed, SEP os not completely DEAD, yes Sweden has stopped funding but BAE is still continuing with research (especially on the 8×8 version and the associated technologies), so there is still an outside chance this could end up in production.

One thing to consider with the current MRAPS, is that they were bought using UOR monies, if they are not moved in to the core then there is no funding after the UOR money runs out which will then see them for sale by Withams!!! I can see it happening too! and they will be sold at knock-down prices, x months later we will have a need for them and have to go and buy new at some crazy inflated prices. Of course this will be nobody’s fault..

Yup SEP is dead for now Sweden does not want to go it alone as it currently does not really have the need as its CV90’s are not that old, they also have a restricted and shrinking budget. We have not had a serious look at it nor funded it because the MoD seems to have no idea what the hell it actually wants. There is no C-130 transportability requirement and nor should there be but it would be handy if it could be hauled around by the C-130 especially as the herky bird will still constitute a large chunk of the fleet. I don’t see much point in the German Weasel if I’m honest it’s basically a tracked armoured car there would be some uses for it but it’s a bit of an odd one especially so I don’t really know. I agree common sense says go for the off the shelf buy and choosing the CV90 as it’s made by Big And Expensive and is a well proven vehicle that is in service with NATO and European allies. However the SEP for a development program seems to be reasonably mature there is still more risk involved so it would really have to be looked at for both the long and short term. I would be quite happy if the MoD finally just decided upon something (it’s about time to extract a digit) my preferred more or less proven off the shelf option would be a combination of CV90 and Boxer MRAV’s. As you know we were even part of the Boxer team so it should be suitable for the role and is being bought by the Dutch and Germans so it would not be a UK only system. Although I would rather avoid the wheeled option altogether as when wheels are needed along come the MRAP’s etc which we should have plenty of after Afghanistan.

In regards to airlift I agree fully if we really want to try and pretend we can do airlift we really need to order quite a few more aircraft ideally more C-17’s before the line shuts and more A400M’s if they work. Personally I can easily see the RAF airlift fleet at only around 7-8 C-17’s backed up by around 30 A400M’s the additional A400M’s bought as the J model Hercules retire not really enough to do much with. Smaller aircraft I don’t think would even be considered as politicians would most likely point to the Chinook fleet (if we ever have 70 in total) and say that they can fill the gap which of course they can’t really.

Well we have conflated a lot of issues here, so just my 2 cents worth (because its boring at work and I hate to left out…)

1. SEP is dead, shuffled off its mortal coil, unfunded by either UK or Sweden, so not much point in wishing for it.

2. Can’t understand any requirement (if it exists) for C130J air-mobility, if you want decent protection forget the Herky bird. If you want light weight air mobile armour, buy the German Weasel.

3. Wheels versus tracks – it does not have to be ‘either / or’ it should be balance of both. Someone mentioned wheels are better for urban COIN – but we are not doing urban COIN anymore, that was the last war(Iraq….) . MRAP’s are just Saxon’s on steroids, nothing wrong with that, but wheels are suffering in Afghanistan.

4. Neither CV90 nor its rival ASCOD design are new or revolutionary, but FRES was a debacle, we have limited money and we desperately need to replace CVR(T) family – so we can either pour money into re-starting development of SEP or buy something off the shelf. Right now, I vote for off the shelf, and I vote for CV90 not ASCOD.

5. IF we have a requirement to put a ‘real’ force capable of deterring or fighting an aggressor into place by using just airlift, then we better up the RAF budget and buy a lot more C17′s.

Fair enough, not really sure what else to add.

Dominic not to start a tracks vs wheels war I would point out that the BAE SEP uses rubber band tracks (well not rubber but something anyhow)and so most likely will future vehicles as they have advantages . Furthermore there is always the option of rubber padded steel tracks or the US is/has developed a segmented rubber track to remedy a flaw they see in one piece band tracks. If it were between wheeled and steel tracks then wheeled has big advantages by wheels vs. band tracks not so much imho.

As for weight from what I’ve found CVR(T) is almost the same weight as the BAE SEP although the CVR(T) is still slightly lighter even with additional armour and other modifications. The BAE SEP according to Army Technology without any additional armour only really resistant to small arms fire up to maybe .50cal. An additional 1.5t of armour will raise the protection standard so that it can defeat the Russian 14.5mm armour piercing round heavier armour still will protect against 30mm APFSDS rounds. I have no idea if the weight quoted of 13.5t “combat weight” includes the additional protection required to defeat the 14.5mm AP round but I hope it does as it will basically need that additional armour is most situations. For Afghanistan for instance the additional armour would be needed alongside a form of bar armour either the normal steel or aluminium cage or possibly the Tarion(1) fabric composite panels. Those together should protect the hull from small arms and RPG’s while the hull could be given a possible redesign to better deal with the mine threat alongside additional belly armour. Hopefully with bar armour and the additional 1.5 tons of armour the vehicle should till come in under 20t so it could still be hauled around by the C-130J if needed and without the additional kit 2 should fit in the A400M.

The Armour the Swedes use is designed by IBD Deisenroth Engineering(2) and the Active protection system is also related to the Thales Shark. The System has been successfully tested on of all things the BAE SEP coincidence I think not although I would be interested to see what the British Army think of the system. If we adopted the BAE SEP we have the option of fitting the vehicles with the system which hopefully should still be getting improved and tested so it could be mature enough for fielding. Another thing I would hazard a guess at is the SEP by vitue of it’s modular system should be reasonably well protected from mines as the module is armoured and separate from the hull so a mine would have to penetrate both. The Module is also slightly U shaped which could maybe be modified to be more of a U or V shape additional protection could be sandwiched between them if needed. There is only so much that can be done anyway as even MBT’s have been taken out by IED’s and compromising the design to try and improve protection is not wise in my view as MRAP’s should be mainly used.

(1)http://www.amsafe.com/products/detail.php?id=69&type=categories
(2)http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap.html

DomincJ, first of all CVRT is no longer 8t it in fact nearer 13/14t with all the recent upgrades. Obviously the armour of SEP is secret but I would expect it to be able to defeat RPG/66 anti-armour weapons by using a range of measures including an active DAS. The Swedes have already developed one for the CV90 (its name escapes me) have a look on google.

Sorry if I was unclear, I didnt mean upgrade the current CVR(T) fleet, but we could build something along similar lines, tracked, about 8t, reliant on speed and mobility rather than armour for protection.
I’m the first person to shout whenever the army starts wittering on about “mobility” in Afghanistan, but in some (most) cases, it is a valid defence.

A much heavier vehicle would be significantly less air mobile, making it irrelevent for FRES and offer little in the way of additional protection against light anti tank weapons.
Is the SEP really anymore survivable than a CVR(T)against an 88 LAW or an AT4?

DominicJ the CVRT is flawed in that the fuel tank is inside the vehicle along with the crew, and that being made mainly of aluminium it is highly vulnerable. The Stormer (a stretched and widened Spartan) was a big improvement but falls short of what you would want to deploy now as a new vehicle.

SEP is the step in technology that is required for the middle weight vehicle (what FRES should be about).

Everything else is just replacing what is worn out!!!

Yes we need MRAP types and the RANGER and the Ocelot/SPV can fill that gap and most if not all of what OUVS was supposed to do. I think that we probably don’t need anything like the Piranha as they are not up to either the COIN or the high-end war fighting roles, as you say you really need tracks for the high-end stuff and a dedicated MRAP or something like RANGER are far superior.

Although Tracks are certainaly more mobile and much more flexible, they’re really bad for a COIN war in urban areas.
Tracked Vehicles cause huge amounts of damage to roads, and thats unlikely to win any hearts and minds.
If you want to drive around a city long term, you need wheels.

The same goes for mine protection.
If we’re planning on using a vehicle in a high intensity war we just dont need mine protection and its going to seriously compromise a small vehicle in other roles.

Is there anything really wrong with the CVR(T) series during a raid or the opening stages of a hot war?
Obviously they need some improvements, but the basic concept seems salvagable.

At 5 to 8 tons a transport variant is likely to be limited to transporting a fire team rather than a section, but if you view them as recon and support vehicles rather than mini tanks, they could be very useful.
Could you fit a 120mm mortar on one?
A light artilery piece?
Half a dozen 40mm grenade launchers?

That would gve us a three tier structure.

Challenger 2 and Warrior at the Top for a Proper War

Advanced CVR(T) in the middle for Strategic Raiding

Mastif and Cougar at the bottom for Peace Keeping

Euan, FRES was doomed to failure as there was never a clear set of requirements. We ended up with FRES as a default as we everthing else had either failed or we had withdrawn from. This coincided with the notion of the EU rapid Reaction force and what the Septics were doing with FCS. So FRES was born and what an abortion it has turned out to be. I am with you with regard to wheeled APCs. Wheels have their uses but when maximum mobility and protection is required tracks are had to beat. I am a big fan of SEP. Yes it needs much more development but growth potential can be designed in (i.e. Hybrid drive etc). We also need to look at its mine protection as its flat bottomed hull now looks to be a major weakness. I do however, think that the weight will be more of the 16-24 tonne when fully spec’d and fitting 2 in a A400M is probably going to be pushing it. We do need a range of vehicles as one size will not fit all. I think the Viking still has a role to give light forces the mobility and firepower they have lacked for years. It must be possible to design a hull that incorporates the latest thinking on deflection AND absorption technologies plus a variable ride height suspension that offers a good stand-off distance buit still gives it the mobility it has now. A few more versions equipped with external guns (40mm CTA for example) and 120mm mortars would be very useful. SEP in the middle and CV90/Warrior and CR2 etc… at the top end, not fogetting a large number of LPPV types and of course MRAPs. The RANGER looks to be a very useful vehicle that could do both low/medium war AND COIN.

Phil excellent insightful comment I must say. Linking all these vehicles together is part of the problem whereas if we thought about them all separately or some of them separately it would be a easier way of doing things. I’m still thinking about the FRES Scout as part of the FRES family so I’m naturally thinking of not just what is best for that single role. If we think about things in a single role however we will or could end up with a huge variety of vehicles with bugger all in common from tyres to nuts and bolts. So a big thing about the SEP is that factor of commonality that should exist in the vehicle family the main differences are between individual base chassis while the pods should be common between both options. Basically in the end you would have Challenger 2 and updated Warrior at the high end with the SEP in the middle and then the MRAP’s etc at the bottom hopefully a suitable array of options.

One thing I would add is that I am not really a huge fan of wheeled vehicles especially those designed to get shot is that weight always increases so accentuates inherent drawbacks and damages supposed advantages. The SEP could get round this as it could use the wheeled or tracked chassis as necessary as long as enough of each is procured it should be less of a problem than sticking with a non-modular pod and chassis option. Another of the reasons I like SEP which might not fit in with my other comments regarding what I would like the armed forces to be doing most of the time. Is that it is smaller and lighter so with an eye on the A400M there is a possibility of 2 SEP’s being transported per A400M as the combat weight is supposed to be less than 15t. This means that they are much easier to move by air and a better fit for the low intensity warfare that will supposedly dominate the future. Also if the weight does not increase too much then it should also be transportable by C-130J widening the pool of aircraft that can carry it important due to our small and shrinking aircraft fleet. Also with an eye on theatre logistics the SEP should burn less fuel and if anyone has seen the supposed cost of a gallon of fuel in Afghanistan this is surely a valid and important point especially since the bean counters rule.

Dominic good point it’s not a future vehicle it’s actually a good age which is what I’ve been trying to say it isn’t the future it’s the past and present not that there is anything wrong with that. I don’t want the UK to be left behind I would actually like us to get ahead of the pack and maybe just maybe actually be in with a chance of selling vehicles to people again. I know what I want although I’ve no idea who agrees with me or if I’m in a complete disconnect from what is wanted or needed by the Army.

The trouble here is linking these new vehicles with FRES. This gives an expectation that is no longer relevant. We never needed a programme like FRES, we simply needed to replace a fleet of ageing vehicles (FV432, Saxon and CRVT). We would have been better off dealing with them individually as was the original intention. If so buy now we would have had the BOXER in service replacing the Saxon and a large slice of the FV432 fleet. Tracer was supposed to replace the CVRT but this was dropped whn the yanks pulled out. I am well aware of the deficiencies with the CVRT fleet but there is still a need for a range of vehicles that are easily transported by air in a way that CV90 and the like are not. I am not saying that having a high-end recce capability the size of CV90 is not what is required for a conventional war in Europe, but for expeditionary type conflicts then some thing more like the SEP is required. We are going to end up with heavy-weight Warriors/CV90 at one end and Viking/Warthog and a handful of MRAPs at the other and a big gap in the middle. Perversly the thing that FREs was supposed to fill!!!

I must be missing something here.
How is a 20 year old Infantry Fighting Vehicle being considered as the FUTURE RAPID effect system SCOUT vehicle.
Its not from the future because its 20 years old, its not rapid because only 3 could fit on a C17, and its not a scout because its an infantry fighting vehicle.

It really depends what you want FRES to be, and frankly it seems no one has a clue what they want, never mind what they might get.

Is it supposed to fight a low level counter insurgency war against an enemy who has mastered strategic mining, a high level war against an inferior power or a high level war against an equal or superior.

The first requires a cheap sacrificial MRAP, the second a well armoured vehicle and third a lightly armoured fast vehicle.

At a pinch, you could get a vehicle to be mine and rocket protected, or fast and mine protected, but its never going to protect the crew from mines, rockets and be fast.

Personaly, I think talk of any armour but the heaviest is mostly a self delusion, even I wouldnt be overly phased if asked to carry a 6kg light anti tank weapon around with me, which could punch through a Warrior, CV90 or CVT with equal ease, and theres no reason during a proper war every soldier couldnt be given one.

Phil, ref:

1. Its not a like for like replacement for the CVR(T) as its the same size as the Warrior! I am with others on this blog in that the SEP is more the vehicle that is needed for a recce type vehicle. The CV90 is just to bloody big.

It is a vehicle that meets current requirements. 40 plus years ago the CVR(T) used speed as protection for a projected central European engagement against Soviet massed armour. A like for like replacement of CVR)T would be a disaster for the crews !

2. Why are we bothering with the Warrior upgrade and considering buying the CV90 at the same time, surely it would make more sense, both in terms of cost and logistics to us the CV90 for both roles!!

No we cant afford it, common logistics would not make up for scrapping a large fleet of Warriors that have enough life left in them to take on a major upgrade, see my comment on the Warrior Upgrade article. It just would not make financial sense.

The CV90 is an excellent vehicle. The issues I have are:

1. Its not a like for like replacement for the CVR(T) as its the same size as the Warrior! I am with others on this blog in that the SEP is more the vehicle that is needed for a recce type vehicle. The CV90 is just to bloody big.

2. Why are we bothering with the Warrior upgrade and considering buying the CV90 at the same time, surely it would make more sense, both in terms of cost and logistics to us the CV90 for both roles!!

3. I would prefer the CV90 to have a rear ramp rather than conventional door. I also beliebe that an external gun turret is the way to go rather than a manned turret.

Finally I am with Jed in that some form of missile launcher would be a good idea. The StarStreak missile is very good choice as it can do both anti-air and anti-armour. I think a reloadable launcher rather than a box launcher would be better.

Grim there is some major advances I acknowledge that indeed especially in regards to the weapon system which is revolutionary in many aspects. The CVR(T) is pretty ancient though so anything is going to be much better than it and it should have been replaced a while ago as most people know. The CVR(T) family had production started in 1970 the CV90 family in 1993 which is a 23 year gap the BAE SEP could maybe start production in 2013(?) a 20 year gap.

The FCS did indeed turn to dust but something less ambitious than FCS is still going to be a great leap forward after all the FCS program was in many respects a bit barking to say the least. However much of it survives just with different names less ambitious plans and as separate programs so it isn’t totally dead. The French have their “Engin Blinde de Reconnaissance a Chenille” which they are developing although this is not planning on fielding anything for quite some time they are working on it quietly. Basically down the line we will end up being in the same situation we are in today operating less technologically advanced equipment compared to our allies and possible foes that is a situation I don’t like. The chances are we will still be getting vehicles delivered when the USA, France and possibly other nations are starting to field new vehicles another leap ahead of us. So it could be argued our ‘new’ equipment could be obsolete or outdated in some respects as soon as it appears.

The BAE SEP program is promising and it is reasonably mature going by available information it has been extensively tested in Sweden so it’s not a completely unproven vehicle and it was only cancelled in 2008. I’ve no idea how long it would take to finish off the SEP program to an acceptable field standard depending on what that would be but it should not take a large amount of time to finish development. We would most likely not be alone as the Swedes would want to and need to be part of it hopefully bringing some sanity to a joint program although it could also cause disagreements. If we did go down this route it could give the UK a lead in this area and could even bring export success and revenue depending on what partnering route is taken with the Swedish. Export success really? Well maybe that is a bit farfetched after all selling arms is a sinful and immoral business is it not, can’t have that in modern Britain especially those manufacturing jobs.

It’s obvious I’m basically blinkered on the FRES program, the BAE SEP would be the best choice in my opinion for various reasons but the CV90 would still be an excellent choice.

Euan, there are some leaps forward at least, the new gun and turret should be pretty revolutionary.

And if I remember the US has seriously scaled back their ambitions for their ground vehicles when FCS crashed and burned.

Jed FRES is indeed a quagmire of a program and the only way that I can see it being done well enough is if there is strong persistent leadership and sensible decision making. The path of dithering has taken too long but will no doubt sadly continue to affect the program costing money and possibly lives.

The main reason I am concerned about the lack of a large leap in technology is because a choice made now or a contract signed now will most likely mean actual vehicles fielded in what maybe 2 years? They will then be around for maybe 20-30 years in service with the Army with incremental upgrades along the way. During this time other nations will most likely start fielding hybrid modular vehicles I’m mainly thinking of the USA here although other nations are working on it (Erm… like Sweden). The CV90 would have been perfect if we had bought it 10 years ago c.2000 even then it had been in production for about 7 years now it’s been in production for going on 17 years. Don’t get me wrong the CV90 is an excellent vehicle I would be happy to have it as it is much better than CVR(T).

Euan I hear you ref the lack of a ‘leap in technology’ – however this IS a leap in technology for the poor squaddies who man CVR(T) ‘Scimitars’, a forty-something year old vehicle with no main gun stabilisation, a hand-powered turret traverse etc etc….

FRES has been a quagmire of a program, we need something, we need something reasonable, effective and not too expensive, and we need it yesterday !

One small point, I would like to see 2 x Javelin anti-armour missiles in a box launcher on the side of the turret :-)

Well I don’t know about anyone else but I think that is one nice looking armoured vehicle very modern clean lines. I think it would have to be the frontrunner for the FRES Scout vehicle without a doubt especially if the majority of the tracked fleet moves onto using a CV90 chassis. The one thing I would say against choosing the CV90 is that I don’t think it is that much of a leap in technology from the old to the new. It is a progressive advancement in technology rather than a leap or bound forward that could keep the UK in the leading edge rather than just another player. I think that this matters especially as the choices that are taken now which field new equipment in a few years means that equipment will be around for years to come. I would prefer to see the BAE Hagglunds SEP Modular vehicle concept produced and evolved although I know it would take longer to enter service and likely cost more money it should be worth it.