FRES Scout – Is the GD ASCOD the Winner?

The FT are reporting this morning that General Dynamics has won the competition to fulfill the FRES Scout requirement, winning against a shortened BAe CV90

How true this is remains to be seen but if so, one only hopes that the design and industrial issues that scuppered the General Dynamics FRES Utility competition in a blaze of acrimony and hundreds of millions of wasted pounds, have been resolved

In light of allegations of US protectionism on the USAF tanker requirement from Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy and the rebuff over the F35 source codes, not to mention the Falklands issue, is this really a good time to be handing over billions of pounds to US organisations?

 

About Think Defence

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

21 thoughts on “FRES Scout – Is the GD ASCOD the Winner?

  1. Woodenhausen

    I guess it depends if the GD vehicle is really better than the BAe one.
    Must admit it sticks in the throat to give them the contract, but in light of everyone bitching about constant MoD procurement fiascos, maybe this time the contract was awarded on merit.
    Would like to see proof however.

  2. admin

    The FT have been pretty good at getting the story early of late, who knows.

    Will be interesting, both seem like fine systems with varying degrees of UK manufacturer and/or assembly and integration work. I only hope the intellectual property issues have been sorted out this time.

  3. Jed

    I dont believe the ASCOD could be so much better that it would outweigh the disadvantages of going with a U.S. prime / design (even if its to be manufactured in the UK) given the litany described by Admin in the article. Fingers crossed for CV90 !

  4. Euan

    Hmm! I don’t know if the results were to be announced on the 26th of March getting them almost 2 weeks before that seems a bit questionable, mind you it’s the MoD.

    Personally I was hoping for a CV-90 win but I guess people already know that as I like Swedish equipment. I believe the CV-90 to be the better choice for various reasons but I’m not going to list them off as they should be obvious but then again what do I know. Part of me can’t help feel that this is a poke at BAE systems to say we are not married to you and we will choose something else at times.

  5. Privateer

    GD UK’s offer for FRES SV is based on the ASCOD 2 / Ulan IFV in service with the Austrian army (ASCOD stands for Austrian Spanish Collaborative Development). It clearly is not a US design. Santa Bárbara Sistemas and Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH (SSF) just happen to be part of General Dynamics European Land Systems (together with MOWAG of Switzerland and General Dynamics European Land Systems – Germany).

  6. Fiale

    Would be nice to have a UK manufacturing company do this from design to end product. We really need to start designing, producing and exporting more. We seem to be becoming a franchise – like the McDonalds of the military world.

  7. admin

    Yep, spot on

    Hence my post about the Mantis, we need to start making things others want to buy

  8. Jed

    Privateer – thank you for pointing that out, I should of course have known that – GD being the ‘parent company’ is just like BAe being the parent for half a dozen different armoured vehicle manufacturers !

    Would still prefer CV90 though…..

  9. Fiale

    Maybe the US will pull the plug on us for a matter of national interest and we will learn the hard way.

    Crazy that we have to operate UAVs from Nevada – The idea is that you can operate them from anywhere. Will keep my eyes on the Mantis story with interest.

  10. GvG

    Any thoughts on the ability to put 3 CV90′s in a C17 and only 2 ASCOD’s?

    Anyone know if the shortened CV90 would be light enough to transport in a C130? The ASCOD is way to heavy, but the ‘standard’ CV90 is just a bit above the max. transport weight of the Hercules.

  11. admin

    The in service weight of the ASCOD2 FRES Scout will be 34 tonnes with inbuilt growth to 42 and that is without additional bar/rod armour

  12. DominicJ

    I think the UK should buy the best kit, if thats Ascod, so be it.
    That the US would buy home grown kit at the expense of soldiers lives is their choice.

    That said, I simply refuse to believe a 42tonne vehicle is “air mobile”. In what Airforce? Certainly not ours

  13. phil Darley

    This wouldn’t be a sweetener to get Piranha V on our terms would it?

    IF they were going to choose a vehicle of this size, why not open up the Warrior 2000 project?

  14. GvG

    @DominicJ. I’m not talking ‘air mobile’, just the ability to get them to Helmand or any other land locked place.

  15. Phil

    Phil Darley, the Piranha 5 would be a good solution but would need to be built here. And thus far the BAE site at Newcastle have managed to lose millions trying to build Telfords natural product, ie Tactica and show no sign of learning how to build lighter vehicles. So while Warrior 2000 would drop straight in, since BAE would rather employ Swedes or push needles in its eyes than keep Telford working, I am afraid we are stuffed.
    Love the optimism of the guy who thought we would get the best kit

  16. paul g

    i have just read in the paper that BAe have changed their proposal and will now create 800 jobs in the north east so that the CV90 variant will be mostly built in the UK rather than sweden, could the “leak” about the ASCOD winning go down as one of the greastest poker bluffs ever made by the MOD??? if it is hats off to the guys

  17. Phil

    Airmobility, its like an albatross only worse.
    Can anyone remember the last time armoured vehicles flew into a war zone?
    Bosnia, no, Seirra Leone, no, Iraq/Kuwait, none of ours mate, Afghan no. It is a dream, you get the whole of the RAF airlift capacity and you could just about move 15 armoured vehicles with all the kit and crews. Who incidentally would need a real airstrip, and facilities there to arm and fuel them. Because Crab Air bless them dont even let squaddies carry rifles unless they tactical, within theatre. So unless someone at MoD buys a few Antonovs we aint moving Jack Straws by air. Look guys even FROM Iraq we had to get the Antonovs to move Bulldogs back that had been blasted. We have good troops they deserve the best kit, but MoD hasnt yet bought even a washer without losing millions, so why hamper the buying with limits that are totally in the dreams of Generals?

  18. Grim

    Interesting, at 34 tonnes it’ll be 2 tonnes overweight for the current overweight A400M that was specifically designed to carry our new-gen vehicles.

    That’s a kick in the teeth, lucky they dropped the air-mobile requirement.

  19. Fletch

    Well from a production to delivery point of view, it would be easier and less of a risk just to buy from Sweden but if they’re getting built under license in the UK then its even better. There is aircraft that can lift two 65 ton Abrams M1A1s, that would be the Globemaster C-17 MkIII. But just lifting 2 vehicles at a time isnt economic enough. We do need something bigger, not necessarily to use in theatre but to just actually ship equipment to where its needed on mass. Again something the US Air Force is looking into, that being blimps or airships. Could be going back to the zepplin days but this time with a gas that can’t set on fire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>