I know we have laboured this point somewhat but the press release from General Dynamics caught my eye today and I thought it worth further discussion.
To start this post it must be said that we haven’t seen the Requirements Document or submissions from either candidate so everything we, or anyone else for that matter, say is simply uninformed speculation.
What we can do though, is ask a few questions.
Commenting on the deal, Dr Sandy Sandy Wilson, President and Managing Director of General Dynamics UK said.
The ASCOD SV programme is British to its bootstraps
Is this so?
ASCOD SV is the latest generation of a proven European design
Proven, by being in service with Spain and Austria with a few of the Spanish ones being deployed in Kosovo for a while, proven can have many meanings. The ASCOD2 is sold via General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS) that comprises 4 companies; Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH (Steyr-SSF) in Austria; MOWAG in Switzerland; Santa Bárbara Sistemas in Spain, and General Dynamics European Land Systems – Germany. The ASCOD2 is being manufactured in the Spanish facility. Although the Scout is said to be able to grow to a weight of 42 tonnes the specification sheet on the Steyr web site states a maximum combat weight of 31 tonnes although one must assume the other variants already in production are in excess of this.
thanks to a modern, proven drivetrain
That would be the Renk 256B then, manufactured in the very British town of Augsberg
without the need to upgrade its engine
The MTU 8V 199 TE20, MTU being the world famous British manufacturer of diesel engines located in Friedrichshafen, part of the Tognum group.
Its turret is designed by Lockheed Martin UK INSYS
Lockheed Martin, another famous British company headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. The turret in question will use the 40mm CTA canon from CTA International, a joint venture between BAe and Nexter in France. The turret design itself may even be based on the LM Warrior Fightability and Lethality Improvement Programme that included such obviously British organisations as Curtis Wright, Rheinmetall and Moog as partners.
Securing or creating over 10,600 jobs for British workers.
Unless of course you work for BAe or its supply chain, these comments always seem to be over inflated and have tenuous links with reality, never detailing the NET increase or decrease when taking into account the impact on other organisations.
GD UK
employs over 1,600 people at 10 UK and international facilities
will transfer full rate production of the entire ASCOD SV programme to DSG in Donnington, ensuring 80% of ASCOD SV production happens in the UK.
What does full rate production mean, is it assembly of components manufactured abroad, does this mean the first 20% will be manufactured elsewhere and if the figures are as a percentage, is this based on the Recce Block 1 or some future notional figure for the entire (yet to be ordered) programme.
Its Intellectual Property will be based in the UK
Is the word ‘based’ temporary or does it imply ownership by GD UK or the MoD, the Utility Variant competition came to a crashing halt when the MoD and GD could not come to an agreement on intellectual property so this is a vitally important issue.
By value, 80% of the vehicle manufacture will be completed in the UK, with 70% of the supply chain companies UK-based
What does completed actually mean. A company can be UK Based but that does not mean the supply chain will be creating components for the vehicle in the UK. GD UK is based in the UK but is still part of the global organisation that is General Dynamics.
General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD)
Does this mean that any profits accrued to GD will be taken in the US?
Established in the United Kingdom for over 40 years
Only through acquisition
General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs approximately 91,700 people worldwide.
This is a very finely crafted press statement, created no doubt, by marketing professionals, but does it raise more questions than it gives answers?
Is it the SV Scout British to it’s Bootstraps ???
Very good post but was it not also so that BAE were intending to build the cv90 in Sweden?
Absolutely, but the British to its Bootstraps caught my eye and I was feeling mischievous
The GD offering is at least as British as the CV90, which is probably what the GD spokesman is on about. It’s hyperbole, but no less than what has already been passed without comment from the other company.
Hull is foreign, but there’s not really any choice in that, given the already parlous state of the British AFV industry. Drivetrain and engine are foreign too.
Lockheed Martin UK INSYS. That would be the former INSYS Ltd, formerly the Defence arm of Hunting Engineering, located in Bedfordshire.
The CT40. The most British cannon out there, if that’s any recommendation. No other medium calibre cannon has any UK content.
“Securing or Creating” would cover the net contribution. It ranges from no new jobs created but the full quantity retained in existing companies.
Full rate production means production at the full rate of vehicles per month necessary to fulfil the contract. As to the percentage, it could mean either 100% of 80% of the vehicles are built in the UK or that 80% of each vehicle is built in the UK. Given other comments in the release, I would favour the latter.
IPR is a concern, and GD have a history of problems with it. The implication is that the IPR for the Scout is generated by the UK offices and therefore UK IPR.
Profits accrued by GDUK will go to GD, in the same way that profits accrued by any branch of GD will go to a central pool that can be distributed to wherever it is needed for growing the company or to wherever the shareholders are. BAE, the nominally “British” company has spent a large proportion of its profits buying companies in the US, thereby transferring that capital overseas.
While it is quite right to question press releases and political statements, you have to apply the same rigour to both sides.
Welcome to the site Mr Fred. Yes, I know about Hunting Engineering and my point about GD UK’s history in the UK by acquisition was pointing to this. My main point is that behind these carefully crafted words are factors that are ambiguous.
The same would have applied should BAe have won, but GD won and made the statement, so they are the ones that we cover.
I think the whole British to it’s Bootstraps is a reaction from someone that is feeling rather under pressure from the media
Ah, so the response to hyperbole is to apply hyperbole in the other direction.
I agree that the press release has a certain flavour of exasperation, which is somewhat understandable, given the general level of media understanding of defence matters. After all, a tank is any tracked vehicle with a turret (or not) and any company bought instantly takes on the nationality and identity of the buyer. I think I shall have a Kraft Dairy Milk for pudding.
Thank you for the welcome. It’s nice to see a site that maintains a mostly objective and informed view on the subject and an author who takes the time to respond to critics. Even if they are being pedants.
I thought most blogging is hyperbole
Seriously though, do you think ASCOD2 Scout is British to its Bootstraps, because I don’t. Neither was the CV90 variant, perhaps even less so but at least the profits would be taken in the UK. We have run a number of articles on this subject and I hope they all have a consistent line that either option was a rushed, limited option decision based on 20 years of dithering.
Just to be picky… The running gear on the SV version of the ASCOD is NOT the same as fitted to the ASCOD 2 (see link)http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/FRES/Downloads.asp
open the ASCOD SV data sheet. If you can’t wait this is what it says, which is what I was quuoting on previous quotes.
“Despite its modernity, the Renk 256B
transmission is tested and proven,
currently helping to drive the new
generation of German Puma IFVs.
Capable of operating to 45 tonnes it
combines with MTU’s 600kW 8V
engine to provide unparalleled growth
potential for FRES SV” 600kw is 805BHP!!! not as powerful as the 1100 BHP V10 on the PUMA but still a very useful lump. Compare that with 550BHP for the Warrior. It is not clear what engine was to be fitted to the CV90 SV. looking at the Hagglunds website it is also a 600kw (may even be the same MTU engine in the CV90120T. I thought I read somewhere it was a 600/700bhp upgrade to the original Scania lump.
Thanks Phil, post duly ammended.
Its still not British though!
Your right to call this out – it’s not British at all – BUT I DONT CARE !
As noted previously in many of my rants, the British armed forces have dropped below the critical mass required for the Government to use defence spending as an industrial policy making tool.
I do care because its a paper design and the CV90 FRES Scout offering is a physical piece of kit. As you note the ASCOD is ‘proven’ in Kosovo while the CV90 is being used by European NATO allies in AF right now. CV90 is not British either, but just in case you didn’t get first time, I don’t care where its built as along as its good, and there is timely delivery to the army !
Jed/Admin, I concur the CV90 is not British. As I have stated before, despite the fact that Armoured vehicle production was considered a vital capability, we have failed to buy enough to support a UK production facility.
However, I personally would rather we buy a Sweidush design owned by a British company than a Austrian/Spanish design produced by a US company; especially as the US is protectionist in the extreme!!!!
I don;t really care what we buy as long as its the best, to that end we should have considered the PUMA as technically this is the state of the art for AFV designs. However, I gues it is evem more expensive than CV90 which is probably ranked number 2 in the AFV league table.
Now fit a unmanned turret with the MTU V10 (1100BHP) engine to a CV90, made in Newcastle then it ticks all the boxes in my view!!!
Then fit said engine to Warrior upgrade, Terrier and AS90 and then you have a decent engine for key vehicles that are at present looking a tad under-powered.
Neither of the two are what you would really call combat proven, Have we noticed any signs of the Swiss or Dutch ones leaping across the Afghan plain? apart from the english speaking nations most of the rest have been ‘supporting us all the way’ well to the rear. A bit like the eyties guarding the seafront when we went into Yugo.
Its not down to their guys so much as to their country’s ethos. Which seems to be ‘leave you to it but wring our hands a lot@
Anyway Warrior 2000 had more power than 650, if I remember the trials report it could give another 100, and use less fuel because of its improved power train and better compression ratio.
So thanks to Nick Prest (who bought the Hagglunds factory for Alvis with the poisened chalice of having to maintain the factory and workforcewhether it worked or not)their was never going to be a Super Warrior. And the seat covers we stuck on Panther didnt add much UK content to it either.And wound up making next to no profit thanks to the usual Mission Creep when it went North. Luckily it couldnt go into combat without the usual raft of UOR’s to turn an Italian Running Away Truck into quite a reasonable machine. But given the choioce of a ride in a Panther, CV90 Ascod or Warrior? On Salisbury Plain the Panther, in action Warrior
Phil, the MTU unit at 1100 bhp sounds like a bigger engine than the existing Perkins. Is the Warrior engine bay big enough to shoe-horn one in? Plus, would the existing transmission take the additional power without undue wear and tear?
Changes like this could significantly push up costs and delay the Warrior upgrade programme.
Phil,
the Norwegians have been using their CV9030s in AFG, the Swedes their CV9040s, and the Danes are now sending their new CV9035s.
All this and the fact that the Germans have engaged in combat in AFG with their older Marders just tends to go unnoticed in the British and US media…
Phil, my comments about using the MTU V10 were to make a point that we need to standardise on things like this wherver possible. I have no idea id the V10 would fit in the Warrior or any of the other vehicles for that matter. I would hope that the Terrier and AS90 would have sufficient room, but they may not.
I think we are in danger of having far too many engines and gearboxes from a plethora of suppliers all doing the same job. To rationalise this makes sense, surely? When the current crop of AFV’s first came in to service they were all about 25t and had 550/600bhp engines, that’s roughly 22/23 BHP/Tonne. For tanks 25bhp/tonne is considered good. These vehicles have now grown to 35+ tonnes and are expected to reach 45t. Just to maintain the same power/weight ratio they need engines in the order or 1100/1200 bhp. The Germans are the only nation to have realised that and fitted an engine to match!!!
Now I know the Germans do have a bit of an obsession with fcuk-off big engines but I think they have got it bang on. We on the other hand tend to go the other way and fit engines that are way too small and under-powered. Chieftan and Leyland L60 springs to mind. We got it about right with the CR2 and the Rolls-Royce 1200BHP engine, even though the M1 and Leo2 had 1500 horses. The latest Leo2 now has a 1800bhp version of the MTU engine, whilst our RR lump is still stuck in a “time-warp”.
This is symptomatic of the war we do things, or should I say don’t do things. Other nations continually update and improve their kit, unil recently, very recently we did not.
Phil, with regard to CV90 and ASCOD not being combat proven, that is a bit of an irrelevance really!!! Most NEW kit by its nature of being new has not been used in combat. The Warrior and Chally2 were not combat proven when we bought them. Are you suggesting we go and buy M” Bradley’s or BMPs? (joke) but you get my point. Thorough field testing should determing if its fit for purpose and if not, you het your money back and go and buy something that is!!!
Prior to the FRES scout decision I guess we would have been heading down the commonality route as Warrior, Terrier and CV90 all have variations of the same x300 transmission.
Sorry guys, was not suggesting that the pwertrain of even Warrior 2000 was the best, just correcting the horse power she had. Even Vickers abandoned its Perkins love affair for the C2E, dropping a much better German lump that took up LESS space than the British Army donkey did. The only thing I would say on the comment from ‘the other Phil’ is that by the time you get to field testing its too late to get your money back. Its relatively easy to get one or two vehicles to perform to spec. And if they dont you can snow the customer with ‘ that will be changed on production’ to a certain extent. Warrior even had an air filtration system known to be prone to bypassing of the filters fron hull 27, nothing happened till Granby scattered engines across the sands of Saudi. I truly hope that it goes right, for whoever makes it. Because my grandson will be sat in it eventually, and lots of other kids too. So whether its Swedish American, or Spanish American dont matter a fcuk. As long as its well made, well designed, and well supplied; so they come home as safe as possible
A bit late, perhaps, but:
“British to it’s bootstraps” the ASCOD isn’t. However, the full quote is:
“The ASCOD SV programme is British to its bootstraps”
The design work for the FRES SV is predominantly, if not exclusively, British. It’s a minor nitpick but an important one, IMHO.
As to the location of the profits, BAE may be a British company, but they’ve been spending quite a large some of their money setting up their presence in the US. So that’s money (profit) from British projects going abroad. In the mean time, other international companies have been establishing presence in the UK, bringing profits accrued elsewhere into the UK.
As to later posts suggesting the Puma, there are a number of problems that count against it:
It’s small. With a semi-unmanned 30mm turret there is room for only 6 dismounts.
It has a semi-unmanned 30mm turret. The idea of bringing this into British army service would result in a catastrophic shortage of monocles due to their falling out in surprise/indignation.
It has a semi-unmanned 30mm turret. The MoD has already made it clear that they only want a 40mm turret. For some reason.
and a German turret now as well
“Lockheed Martin UK will use a German design on the turret it is supplying to General Dynamics UK as part of the ASCOD SV machine selected last week by the Ministry of Defence for a new British Army armored scout vehicle requirement.”
There still seems to be very little coming from General Dynamics about the final specs. Apart from a new 40mm gun what else has changed ? Is the crew compartment smaller as a reconnaissance version will not need to accommodate eight in the back.
It now seems that the FRES SV purchase will be cut to 70-100 units, which must surely change the cost factors considerably.
The Warrior upgrade programme has also been postponed, with the IOC now given as 2022! No doubt far fewer vehicles will be upgraded, too.
It does make me wonder about the future of the 40mm cased telescoped weapon system selected for both projects.
Hi TW,
Very interesting information.
Incidentally the 70-100 equates to the number of Chally2′s to be kept in service.
Further, take the Canadian model, when they reintroduced tracked armour:
- 40 Leo2′s in the field
- 40 with formations ready to deploy
- 20 older models,to be worn out in training fields
So without knowing much about formation recce organisation as it stands (wasn’t reading the site when their uses and role were being debated), I would hazard a guess
- they will be the only armoured formations (ref re-Bridaded 5 multi-role units)
- there will be equal numbers of heavy (Chally2), medium (Scout) and light (Ocelot, Jackal or similar) formations constituting the regiment (if that name survives)
You are bang-on about the new gun: with the variety of ammo needed for different uses, how can you stock, and in the field supply, enough for just, say, 70 units?
- mind you, the French will also be using it but surely only the production will be shared
Just a note, the comment from Jed above is a new Jed, not me the one that comments here all the time and writes articles for the site.
I make this distinction only because the “other Jed” says he doesn’t care where FRES SV is made, as long as its good. I however, for various reasons, do not think the ASCOD 2 based SV will be very good, compared to the CV90 variant.
Even worse, looking at Tony W’s posting above, why bother ? Should we just not confirm the conversation of the Army into the Gendarmarie after the pull out from Afghanistan, and at least be honest about things……
Errr, there is only an ASCOD 2 SV. CV90 is a different vehicle and not SV.
Warrior IOC 2022 is ridiculous – why bother? 70 SVs (presumably Scout version is daft, unless you are also going to bring in RRVs, APCs, Command vehicles and the like in on the same chassis. Let’s face it, we need something to replace the FV432.
I am starting to think I should stop following defense issues especially those related to the UK as they are getting more and more depressing. All sense to strategy or hint of common sense seems to have firmly gone out the window. Time for a MUNTINY to save our Armed Forces
LJ
Nope what we have is the inevitable reduction of the army at least to a gendarmeree with some expedition/ peace keeping enforcing role.
Of course if we planned it and equiped for it, we could have a very good force at it, efficient well trained equiped mobile etc.
If we hang by our fingertips to ‘capabilities’ waiting for the second comming, by deploying hugely expensive penny packets of equipment, (of course with lots of HQ’s, joint commands, Royal corps of… etc) then we will still end up with the Gendarmeree etc, just one with no/knackered equipment, little real force etc.
My money is on the last scenario.
I just wish the Government was straight with us, which would be first I know. Just state that we cannot afford to do what we used to, give a clear idea about future roles and what is going to be obtained to carry these out.
I have no problem with this but do with Politicians saying we are still intending to be a global power for good then leaving squadies with only one swiss army knife per platoon!
A reduction of 40% in tanks will leave the five armoured regiments with 31 each. Three squadrons of 10 and one at RHQ. Very much the NATO ideal model which always thought our 14 tank squadrons were too big.
I don’t think the formation reconnaissance regiments will amalgamate with the tank regiments and the status quo will remain at five regiments each. Remember they want to retain the expertise for any future increase in strength.
The infantry will take the hit after Afghanistan. A quick look at the numbers five multi brigades each with four infantry battalions = 20. There will be another four battalions in 16 AA Brigade and one in 3 Cmdo Brigade. The Public duties (3), Cyprus (2) and Brunei (1). For a Grand total of 31 down from 36 at present. Another may be added to the public duties requirement for Scotland. This is also the number of battalions attached to 52nd Brigade so that also would seem to be the ideal brigade to delete from the orbat.
Hi, I love speculation. so RE ” Remember they want to retain the expertise for any future increase in strength.” I got to your numbers exactly, but reached a different conclusion.
Ch2′s 385, of which already 70 stored. 30/ bde would leave enough for training also in the manoeuvre sense of it, somewhere where space permits. Putting one of the current squadrons into formation recce (each of them) would give a fielding ratio of roughly 1:2. Do you remember the-then Commander in Germany complaining that once he had sent 120 Challies to the Gulf, he was left with no tanks (out of 385, not all in Germany of course) at all!?
Where the reasoning falls apart is that MBTs are not very survivable without IFVs “in the tow”. Warrior modernisation programme for roughly 200 would have fitted the need, but if it is true that the programme will be stringed out to 2022, then ASCOD is not a replacement for that; so what is? Keeping the Chally2′s back, behind the recce screen in overwatch role sounds like a flawed concept in isolation?
A thought: if they want to reduce the front line CR2 numbers, why not do like the US Army National Guard and give some of them to the TA to keep the skills base and retain at least some of the TA?
Mr Fred: “Errr, there is only an ASCOD 2 SV. CV90 is a different vehicle and not SV.”
A CV90 based “FRES Scout Vehicle” was actually the competitor against the winning ASCOD 2 based bid. Unlike the winner, the CV90 based FRES SV vehicle had actually been built and exists as a working prototype.
I’m being pedantic, perhaps. I’d like to know why CV90 is so much the superior solution when it, with an extant demonstrator/prototype, was not selected.
However, the position of the two Jeds is not contradictory as stated. One requires the end product to be good, regardless of country of manufacture. The other believes that only the CV90 could have been good. Only if one were to prescribe the country of manufacture might the two positions contradict.
@ Mr fred
Perhaps the fact that CV90 wasn’t selected indicates it probably best in type?
CV90 has very good mobility. It is adaptable; for example you can buy a version with 120mm gun (the was ASCOD trialled with 105mm.) The only criticism I have seen of it is that its armour is (may be?) thin; but that sounds woolly.
RE “CV90 has very good mobility. It is adaptable; for example you can buy a version with 120mm gun”
- true, and works like a real tank (minus some protection)
- you can also put a 120mm on a Boxer, but it has been stated that it can only be fired to the side, so makes it a fire support vehicle, not a tank
- why exactly the difference (weight in the same class); are we talking about high velocity vs not so h-v?
As x mentioned, mobility is the strong point for CV; there are armies (at least one) that has CV in the recce role, but uses cheaper (older) IFVs to work with the tanks.
I can’t really understand why people get so excited by the CV90. There’s nothing wrong with it – I’m sure it’s a fine vehicle – but the british army already have it in service. It’s called “Warrior”
The whole ASCOD / CV90 debate is a bit like buying a new VHS to replace your Betamax – meanwhile the world moves onto DVD while you argue . ..
@ ACC:
“you can also put a 120mm on a Boxer, but it has been stated that it can only be fired to the side, so makes it a fire support vehicle, not a tank”
I would have thought that should be the other way round: firing a powerful gun to the side could roll the vehicle over, but it would be much safer to fire it dead ahead.
Another factor in the wheels vs tracks issue could be that the CV90 looks quite low, even for a tracked MICV, and much lower than a big 8×8. So the thrust of the gun’s recoil has less leverage to roll the vehicle over.
A related issue:
Two of the three contenders for the US Army’s GCV contract (for a new general-purpose MICV) have released details: BAE and SAIC (GD have yet to announce theirs). See: http://defense-update.com/wp/20110121_gcv_teams.html
The requirements have deliberately been specified very loosely, leaving most of the options open to the bidders – including wheels or tracks. Both BAE and SAIC are offering tracked vehicles.
The intriguing difference is that they have chosen contrasting approaches, in that SAIC has teamed up with Rheinmetall to offer a version of the existing, conventional Puma, whereas BAE is going for a new vehicle with hybrid electric drive.
This should be interesting…
Hi Peter @ 10:44,
RE “the british army already have it in service. It’s called “Warrior””
- it does really not make a family that could cover most of the needs of the medium weight formations
- I am not “red hot” for CV, but it does adhere to that concept (and excels in recce roles); the Poles are coming up with a similar family with commonality (and even modules; but in a tank you can’t call them containers – sorry TD)
- what derailed FRES so that the commonality between Scout and General version was lost? … (an academic question, as it is likely no general version will be put in production?)
@TW: Thanks, I knew about the two, but did not know there was a third contender in the wings. The announcements by the two were identical in the sense that both emphasised how much experience from the US heavy formations they had managed to get on their teams (ref. we are supposedly “re-brigading” so that we end up with medium formations).
@ ACC -Do you have any details/links for the Polish design? The only thing that excites me more than Retro-tech is modularity:)
RE: The new multi-role brigades; are they meant to be “medium”? Will this be based on a new medium family of vehicles or mixing heavy and light? Just going to play devils advocate; light armour can be transported by air in limited numbers, medium armour not so much. That leaves road or sea transport. Road might be possible, particularly in developed regions with good roads but even so I would have thought the range would be limited. That leaves sea transport, where I believe size is more of a concern than weight. I’m not dismissing medium armour, it has historically been the most successful type of armour (e.g. Allied armies of World War 2),but with limited space in our sealift why not have heavier, more survivable armour?
Hi GJ,
A good place to start http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?173635-New-Polish-Light-Tank-Concept-and-a-New-Family-of-Vehicles/page6
Somewhere I saw a whole page lay-out of the “swappable” modules, ie, the vehicles can be rebuilt quickly for another mission emphasis (not all, of course, just changing the mix in the fleet).
The name is from General Anders, just in case you wondered…
TD must know of an announcement (coming) and is keeping us in a “holding pattern”, until we get to descend on the army topic?
Well the Anders is certainly provoking some discussion in that forum ! It is an interesting concept for sure. Live a mixture of CV90 plus the Jordanian Falcon turret. Not a “unmanned” turret, but the crew are down in the bustle, protected by the mass of the vehicle body, while the majority of the turret is the gun and the auto loader. Most interesting for me is that the photos and videos show a rear troop compartment with 4 seats = heavily armed Cavalry fighting vehicle = transformation of Formation Recce Regts to Medium Armoured Regiments.
A Merkava light.
Given the space available in an IFV chassis, a couple of dismounts makes a huge amount of sense. An infantryman can snurgle places where no vehicle could get close to. Modern electro-optics mean that these operators will have sensors better than most MBTs. Use a link (short range or wire) back to the vehicle and they have all the benefits of vehicle mounted comms without having to sit on a ridge shouting “Shoot Me!”
The IFV/heavy gun vehicle has some interesting advantages, especially if they can fight a defensive battle. Hull down with just the turret showing would be a very small target and you could even go for a Leopard 1 approach – heavy armour on the turret with a relatively weak hull.
The semi-unmanned turret also has the advantage that the crew can get to the gun if needed since it is just above them, potentially in the same space (or separated by a blast door).
In addition, the deep basket could also be used to give the gun much greater elevation than most MBTs.
X and Mr. Fred – indeed. I wonder if with the size of the future army we might not be able to do much in the way of specialisation. If we had the cash I would turn Chally 2 into Chally 3 by building a Chobham (or later) armoured variant of that Jordanian Falcon turret, reducing crew by 1 and sticking the commander and gunner down into the hull, improving survivability for what may well be a part time TA crew !
On the other hand, keep some Chally 2 and replace current gun with 120mm smooth bore mortar, and M1A TUSK type enhancements, and we have a “heavy infantry support tank” capable of working in urban environments.
As for the Anders, well maybe steal it’s turret and stick it on a CV90 chassis…..
Lots to discuss when TD gets the post-SDSR army threads going !
RE ” a couple of dismounts makes a huge amount of sense. An infantryman can snurgle places where no vehicle could get close to. Modern electro-optics mean that these operators will have sensors better than most MBTs.”
- there we go, recce formations are the armour of tomorrow[?]
- for medium weight this kind of thing (ASCOD-like)+ AT- missiles
- assign a 10/14 strong squadron of Chally2′s [to each] for a good old shooting match over wide-open spaces, just in case
Every year the ” heavies” from each brigade can meet in Canada, with some prepositioned kit, and keep training the tank-on-tank manoeuvre skills
- I would quote (for this, as a rationale) that
1. not one M1 was lost, rather than immobilised, in the Gulf campaigns (is this true; RPGs aimed at the air vents from behind and all that… not so likely in a more conventional campaign)
2. not a single Merkava crew lost in the several Israeli campaigns (again, immobilised tanks are not lost tanks, and the crews are even more important)
Hi Jed,
RE”As for the Anders, well maybe steal it’s turret and stick it on a CV90 chassis…..
”
- that’s why my link was to the top of p.6 of the discussion, starting with “the best bits from CV90 stolen, and then…”
Yes, when we get to the thread, I will have more on the mortars, too.
yes, lots more interesting things to discuss in the pipeline
Just working on finishing the flying stuff
@ Jed
It is the export version of the Chally’s engine I covert.
Hi TD,
RE “finishing the flying stuff”
- we have not talked much about combat-oriented UAVs;specifically:
- will Taranis survive in any form, or is the future for the Anglo-French co-operation pertly (not mainly?) in this space… (that would make the Dassault-led effort to encompass a good half dozen nations then)
- what will fly off the half-empty carrier flight deck: the USN unmanned, stealthy and persistent penetrating bomber will be in service at about the same time as the JSF (at this rate)
Recce formations as the armour of tomorrow – no. A silly idea. A unit as lightly armoured and manned as a recce unit is too fragile to use as a main force. Part of Recce is snurgling around and an infantryman is much better at this than any vehicle. The advances in electro-optics means that you don’t have to have a vehicle to mount them on, but you still need a main force to take and hold ground.
I really dislike the idea of an infantry support tank, especially one based on an MBT chassis. It already has a 120mm gun that, with the right munition, can do almost everything that the mortar can do. What the gun cannot do, you are no worse off having a lighter rear-echelon vehicle with a mortar on for that capability
The Falcon/Anders turret is an interesting idea but the area you would need to protect to keep it in the fight isn’t actually much less than the manned turret. If you are prepared to suffer an F-kill at a lower level than a manned turret then you can save some weight. Otherwise the protecting area is about the same. Hull down you get some advantages because you can keep at least some of the bustle autoloader out of sight
Not sure why Anders turret on CV90 would be worth doing. CV90 already has a qualified 120mm turret
What I’d like is a family of AFVs at each level. 10-20t lights, 30-40t Mediums and 50-60t+ heavies. ARRVs, AVREs, APC/IFVs, tanks etc.
The more I think about it the more I think we need something to replace CVR(T) that is about the same size and weight, plus a medium weight system and then something at the top, as you say