In the previous post I made the case for innovation and a coherent development programme to equip the armed forces with a single class of lightweight vehicles with ruthlessly enforced commonality to replace a wide range of in service vehicles, everything from the Land Rover 90 GS to the Pinzgauer 6×6.
Moving up the weight scale into the space currently occupied by the Mastiff and Ridgeback and perhaps in the future by a FRES Utility Variant, this vehicle(s) will be the mainstay of the Mechanised Infantry Brigades. There is also the Tactical Support Vehicle programme that compensated for a lack of helicopter lift with a range of logistics support vehicles based on the Jackal and Mastiff platforms, Coyote and Wolfhound respectively, with a new vehicle (Husky) from International MXT. The Wolfhound and Coyote are sensible choices because they match the base vehicles in the units that operate them.
I do not think the 8×8 wheeled combat vehicle like the US Stryker have a future on the modern battlefield because it offers too many compromises for a significant cost, therefore, the FRES UV programme should be collapsed, at least in its current guise and alternatives investigated.
In the short term the existing combination of Bulldog and Mastiff/Ridgeback/Wolfhound/Husky would seem to be a realistic solution. The UOR vehicles can be absorbed into the main equipment programme and any minor enhancements applied on a rolling basis after they have been refurbished. The FRES Recce vehicles will provide an effective supplement to these vehicles in the near future and Bulldog, whilst an old basic design and chassis, is still quite good in its role. Mastiff and Ridgeback are also well regarded and the other UOR vehicles like Husky should also be retained in the short term, the money has been spent.
In the medium term we should be thinking about a family of vehicles for protected mobility, logistics and other specialist roles, and again, I have to reiterate that the UK has enough automotive design expertise to go its own way, even if we are supported by other nations that might have specific experience or technologies.
The gold standard for IED protection is without a doubt the Force Protection Mastiff but its weight and general configuration results in a pretty low level of mobility, it needs its high level of protection because it is road bound. It is also a fuel hog and availability issues caused by the harsh terrain of Afghanistan have continued to afflict the vehicle.
Without necessarily coming off the fence I thought a few options for discussion might be useful.
Contents
Option A – Improve the Mastiff/Ridgeback/Wolfhound
We know their faults, primarily around mobility, can these be addressed in a Mastiff Mark 3 development, with new independent suspension like the TAK4 from Oshkosh, or would this achieve only a small incremental improvement?
With this option we would retain Bulldog for the medium term.
Option B – Follow military fashion and buy an 8×8
This would mean the existing Mastiff/Ridgeback/Wolfhound/Bulldog combination would be withdrawn or put into storage to be used for operations with high IED threat and replaced completely with a new family of vehicles. Candidates might include the Artec Boxer, GD Piranha or any other of the hundreds of designs available from various manufacturers. This might mean the UK accepting a higher risk profile for IED threat but that might be mitigated with greater direct attack protection and other capabilities in a trade off. It is probably fair to say that the IED killed of the FRES UV competition so I don’t think this is a viable option.
Option C – Buy into a Vehicle Already or near Maturity
Accepting that the traditional 8×8 or keeping/improving what we have is non starter there are other options available to fill the role.
The BAe RG35 ‘Multi Purpose Fighting Vehicle’ is an interesting design that is said to offer the survivability of an MRAP with the versatility of a conventional combat vehicle and a high level of mobility. It is a compact design, 7.4 meters in length, 2.5 meters in width and 2.7 meters in height.
The basic vehicle weighs 18.1 metric tons and is designed to operate at 26 tons for high-mobility operations and 33 tons when kitted with extra armour for urban combat. Additional features include a modest turning circle 15m, accommodation for a driver and 15 crew, 15 tonne payload, top speed of 115kph and a range of approximately 1000km. An unique design feature is engine placement; the power pack is installed behind the driver, offset to the left, with space for a gun turret and operator on the right, this is said to lower the profile, make maintenance much easier, replacement possible in 30 minutes and improve weight distribution for extra mobility.
Protection to STANAG Level 4 and beyond is possible and the usual range of options and variants is available including protected mobility, ambulance, repair/recovery, logistics and weapons platform.
A similar option is the Universal Engineering Ranger we had a quick look at in the previous post
Although it does not have the heritage of the RG35 there is no doubt it is an innovative concept and from the video looks quite mobile, acceleration, top speed and off road mobility seem good. The more I look at the Ranger the more I like it.
The Ranger is claimed to far exceed STANAG 4 for blast protection and additional protection is available. Survivability is a key design criterion; additional features include a top speed of 107kph, range of over 1000km and a 0-50kph time of 7 seconds.
Able to fulfil a variety of roles the Ranger can also be produced in a 4×4 and 8×8 configuration. Modularity (my favourite subject) means that in the field maintenance and repair is relatively simple. The Ranger design focuses on survivability but also recognises that mobility contributes to this and as such is said to exceed Improved Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC) characteristics, obviously a good thing although the turning circle is a metre less than the RG35.
The Ranger also has some neat features like an auxiliary powerpack for sensors, communications and charging/power export, the seats can be unclipped to form stretchers and a hydraulic rear door/ramp.
Option D – Think Defence Off the Reservation Option 1
Whilst we all know that Option A is the most likely outcome I think a bit of blue sky thinking is in order!
The next two sections floats a couple of ideas based on existing civilian vehicles and technologies that can be militarised and adapted to meet both the protected mobility and logistics roles, highly survivable and extremely mobile.
The Hover Track ‘New Holland’ and Band Track
Hover Track is a Dutch organisation that specialise in high mobility load carrying solutions for the agricultural, transport, quarry and industrial sector. They have taken a number of existing highly economical commercial base designs and adapted them for a unique set of requirements.
The ‘new Holland’ cab arrangement places the driver on the centreline and high, converted this model to military use would obviously need a deep V hulled shallower cabin equipped with the expected protection elements and tandem seating for driver and commander, maybe a remote weapons station.
Note in the video how mobile the unit is because of its compact dimensions
A standard hook lift system can be fitted that can deliver true modularity by simply dragging onto the chassis whatever module is needed, whether that is a passenger module, ambulance, command, flat bed or anything else. If the module becomes damaged, simply hook on another. There are no reasons why a fully featured intercom facility could not be provided in the same manner as the Viking and Bronco use. In addition to the hook lift system the load bed could also easily be fitted with an articulated trailer interface so the base unit could also meet medium mobility logistics requirements, using a trailer.
Thus we would be able to utilise a single base unit for a wide number of roles, dramatically improving logistics and maintenance overheads.
The videos show the vehicle in relatively benign off road conditions, farms and tracks etc so whilst the loads look large and bulky they are not necessarily heavy so in order to improve mobility in austere conditions for heavier loads the base unit could have the rear driving wheels fitted with another Hovetrack innovation, the track system as shown in the video below.
By having both systems of traction available, wheeled or tracked, we can take advantage of the cost and strategic mobility advantages of a commercially derived wheeled truck chassis yet should the terrain we are operating in require much higher mobility we simply add on the tracks.
Option E – Think Defence Off the Reservation Option 2
The Volvo Articulated Loader
This is not actually a new idea because the Archer and its predecessor have used the Volvo A30 articulated loader as a base vehicle for a self propelled artillery system. The BAe/Hagglunds BVs10 family and ST Kinetics Bronco/Warthog also use an articulated cab concept to achieve extreme mobility.
The Archer uses an extended Volvo A30 6×6 articulated loader because of the length of the 52 calibre barrel so imagine something similar but much shorter. I am not particular fan of the Archer but that’s for another post. This proposal takes that concept and extends it to protected mobility and logistics.
Volvo invented the articulated loader in the sixties and have been continually refining their designs ever since. The Transport Solutions Division provides a design and build capability for non standard applications.
Instead of the 6×6 A30E base model we could use the 4×4 A25E with a low profile and armoured cab like the Archer, this has room for 2 in a protected cell and remote weapon station. As with our suggestion above, a tandem seating arrangement allows one to create a relatively deep V shape for the crew cell for maximum survivability against IED blast and additional protection against other threats could also be provided.
Because the drive unit would be common, any number of articulated sections could be used, a 4×4, 6×6 or extended 6×6 unit for longer loads.
Using common building blocks drives down cost.
Off road mobility is of course excellent but on a road less so although for the A25E there is an add on that provides a very small turning circle, using a drop down steerable rear wheel, this is probably not much use in a combat scenario. Speeds are low and the system is configured for payload and traction, some adjustment to the drive system might provide more balanced off road/on road performance characteristics in return for a lower payload.
When looking at payloads for this mad idea or the Option D mad idea, the means of carriage affords a great deal of flexibility if a set of standard design criteria of established and followed. A hook lift system is in widespread civilian and military use. The UK uses the Foden DROPS and MAN SV EPLS systems for flat beds and containers.
The system was first introduced in the USA by the Marel Corporation in the USA, they also invented the skip loading system.
There are now many other manufacturers of hook lift systems and trailers, a couple of examples including Stronga, Edbro, Swaploader and Stellar Industries. They can be used for specifically hooklift compatible payloads or using a suitable adapter like the Stellar Industries Hooklift Spider, ISO containers without needing a flatrack, this type of system is used on the MAN SV EPLS as currently being hammered in Afghanistan.
For an interesting but old analysis of the military applications of the hooklift system click here
Rather than embedding directly these are links to a number of background information videos about the Volvo articulated loaders.
Operating modes, suspension, visibility, operator features and safety.
Finally, just to show where the technology of articulated loaders is going have a look at this video on the Volvo Centaur concept.
Military applications?
Which option would you go for?
Spooky, printed off the Ranger brochure from their website earlier today and was reading it earlier. The more I read about this vehicle the more I like it. I think it can do both what MRAPs do now and most of what we would expect of the like of Boxer/Piranha etc.
Come on chaps order the bloody thing before its snapped up by some foreign Army or worse still company.
check out the turning circle on this bugger (1.42 in the vid). all versions have all wheel steering. (admin i promise to stop talking about this if someone comments on it)!!!!
pressed submit before i had finished!!! could the volvo be the ideal donor vehicle for high mobility MRLS? if the tractor unit goes VOR at least the system could still be used.
One other question what is the height of the ranger on the vid it looks huuge, is it air portable?
I couldn’t agree more with Phil Darley about the Ranger. Incidentally, is the photograph of the Ranger in convoy genuine or have the images of the vehicle been superimposed (for sales purposes or something)? The reason I ask is that I wonder whether it could be a Canadian convoy. The Canadians have certainly expressed a strong interest in Ranger and there were rumours that they might be the first purchasers with an order for 500.
The RG-35 also looks a good bet. It appears to have combined the best qualities of a fast wheeled fighting vehicle with protection levels equal to those of current generation MRAPs. It carries 15 troops too!
Paul, I like the PARS but then I still think the whole design of the traditional 8×8 is a dead end.
The Ranger is stated to be C130, C17 and A400 compatible. I think the long sloping nose makes it look taller.
The like the Volvo concept, have a common tractor unit and the skys the limit for rear ends, why not MLRS or anything else for that matter. The logistics advantages would be enormous.
Mike, the Ranger pictures in a convoy are a computer mock up. They have only built a couple of prototypes so far I think.
Are there no takers for my hair brain schemes then, come on chaps, let your minds wander a bit
I’d have to agree with Phil’s comments as well. The Ranger looks a good design which seems to tick alot of boxes – mobility/flexibility/protection.
Read through the Universal Eng website, it mentions it went from design concept to working prototype in 12month. Apart from anything else its incouraging to see a medium British manufacturing company (from website I gather they are uk based/owned) start from a plain piece of paper and go to a working design in such a short space of time and produce something thats definitely worth closer consideration. Rather than some defence giant that trawled through it’s archives (or it’s subsidiaries archives) to find and update an old design.
What ever your views on the merits of the Ranger I think Universal Eng should be incouraged and commended for this, not only for it to keep designing vehicles for future consideration but also to incourage other UK manufactures to spend money on R&D for defence projects.
First time i’ve commented but i’ve been following TD blog for quite awhile now, its been great to read the balanced and informed discussion/arguements that go on here.
Well I think the Ranger would be a good bet if the design is mature enough, meets or exceeds the requirement laid out by the Army and MoD as well as being independently tested to death. To me the choice is really between the RG-35 and ranger for such a vehicle and the Ranger would win as it could be entirely made in the UK. We would also be supporting a domestic wholly UK owned company and supply chain (?) which could hopefully win some export orders therefore generate jobs and tax revenue. Politically speaking of course supporting a UK company with a viable option would be a must especially with the state of the economy and the need to create real jobs.
As for the other commercially derived options I can see them being options but going for Ranger is a much simpler route than trying to take something and develop it into something useful. The Ranger and LPPV, when variants are added to create families, would be an excellent choice of combat and support vehicles for a Mechanized Infantry Brigade in many situations. What tracked vehicles would be available to a mech brigade? I would imagine Bulldog would be available to them or maybe the protected mobility FRES SV variant?
Oh and Hello Mark nice to see someone new contributing to the comments
Welcome to TD Mark
May I also say a warm welcome to Mark and all the other recently joined new members, but especially Mark as he agrees with my comments
On a more serious note, The Ranger does indeed look to tick most if not all the boxes. One of the mmajor benefits as I see it is that it (being a family of vehicles) and the LPPV (if also developed in to family and the indications are that both contenders have that option) then these two vehicles can replace a vast number of the current fleet and thus make a massive contribution to slimming down and standardising the vehicle fleet. Just think two engines and gearboxes where now we probabaly have nearer 20! and the entire fleet will provide unprecedented levels of protection.
My fear is that the Army are against it and in the current economic climate it won’t get off the ground. As OUVS is dead I don’t think anyone is even thinking about the possibilities of such a purchase.
In September 2009 the MOD stated that there was no requirement for the Ranger. An MOD spokesman said at the time that the prototype had not been blast-tested. Why on earth not? The vehicle had been tested in other capability areas down at Bovington! And yet Universal Engineeering had carried out a test using a quantity of TNT equivalent to double the average size of explosive used in Afghanistan, without the hull being breached. Why couldn’t the MOD just be honest and say we haven’t got the money to buy it at the moment?
The Ranger is unique among armoured vehicles in that it has no chassis, allowing for a crew safety capsule not directly connected to the engine, gearbox or wheels, thus providing immense protection from blast.
MikeW, you are correct, it was that and other responses from the Army/MOD of a similar ilk. They for some reason (and I don’t think its just money) are hostile to this very capable vehicle. My personal view is that they have set their hearts on the Piranha and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their short-sighted and outdated views. I am afaid the miltary are very very slow to pick-up on new ideas, even when for the rest of us its bloody obvious!!!
Yep the Lions lead by Donkey’s… Sorry that’s and insult to Donkey’s!!!
The Ridgebacks/Mastiffs are still providing good service which is probably why the MOD aren’t interested in Ranger despite it having all the right features.
I’m a bit dubious about it fitting on a C-130 as it seems too tall (3m vs a C-130 which is 2.74m tall) although it is ride adjustable so maybe I’m wrong.
Considering the blast testing claim, I’d like to see more specifics before I believe it such as how much is double the average size of explosive in afghanistan and under what conditions. I’ve no doubt given its design that it could probably match Mastiff but it would be interesting to know how much overmatch it could take.
It all depends on what the requirements are in the ‘medium’ weight category. Eventual replacement of MRAP’s and Bulldog / FV432 by FRES family vehicles would seem to be an ideal opening for RG35 / Ranger – I forsee a Top Gear episode featuring a “drive off”.
Right at the beginning you seem to say Bulldog upgrade of FV432 is fine, lets leave it for now. NO, NO, NO ! It has the least blast protection of any vehicle (and I admit that is not always the prime consideration) it is just an ‘upgrade’ of a vehicle that some of my older TA colleagues were driving around in when I was primary school ! You then focus on wheeled vehicles, why not include the Warthog in this medium category ?
I thought that keeping Bulldog in service for the short term is sensible from an economics perspective, nothing more. I know of its limitations but it is still useful for limited applications so whilst it is costing us next to nothing, might as well have them parked up in environmentally controlled storage for when we might need them.
I think Warthog and Viking are great for limited applications but I want a homogeneous with as few types as possible in a single brigade structure. I still think they are useful in the high mobility, amphibious role but survivability is relatively poor so for the future, I would like to see them confined to a niche role for light role forces, the subject of a forthcoming thread
The current generation of IED-protected vehicles such as Mastiff, Ridgeback etc. are not much more than heavily armoured trucks, i.e. they have limited mobility and utility beyond carting troops from A to B. Indeed, a huge number of Mastiffs have suffered from broken axles and other mechanical breakdowns, because they are highly unsuited to the rutted, non-metalled roads of Afghanistan. They are a quick fix solution for an urgent problem. Given the seriousness of the threat they are intended to counter, they were definitely worth buying, but could never be described as true combat vehicles.
Coyote and Jackal are quite the opposite. Both are highly mobile, agile vehicles with excellent cross-country ability. Where they fall short is IED protection. You simply cannot place troops in an exposed vehicle without overhead, upper body protection. At the time when they were first envisioned, developed and deployed, IEDs were not the threat they have now become.
Most of the alternative options you have suggested are based on adding armour to existing high-mobility platforms. This is an approach that is fundamentally flawed. You have to start with the amount of desired protection you need and then build mobility into that.
When you try to combine mobility and protection, you invariably end up with a vehicle like the Boxer or Piranha. Both are well protected and agile. The problem is size. They are enormous and almost tank-like in their proportions. That said, both get the job done. I was lucky enough to be briefed about Boxer by KMW recently. This vehicle is in another league to Stryker thanks to its applique armour. This is exactly the kind of vehicle we need in future. The question is can it be made smaller and lighter, to offer increased mobility without sacrificing protection? This is exactly what current UK efforts in this area are looking at.
I don’t fully understand why Piranha V hit the buffers, but think it was more to do with the IP rights than technical merits of the design. Indeed, I think the MoD may have deliberately asked for too much precisely because they knew they couldn’t afford to buy it now. The way things stand, buying the Boxer may be the best solution in terms of both performance and cost. The Germans don’t get these things wrong and the Bundeswehr firmly believe that the Boxer when deployed to Afghanistan will be the right asset, in the right place, at the right time. Whatever the UK chooses will have as much to do with expected cuts in defence expenditure as the needs of troops on the ground. I suspect we’ll delay any decision for at least another 2 years.
By the same token, I don’t think you can write-off Stryker. As with the Jackal, when this vehicle was first deployed, the IED threat was not perceived to be as great as it has become. Stryker isn’t perfect, but a lot better than a Hummer with a few add-on armour plates. The Americans are working on a radically redesigned version of this vehicle that uses the same 8×8 layout with much better IED protection. The Stryker version with a 105 mm gun is a truly impressive vehicle with exceptional mobility and stability on the move as gun platform. it really pushes the envelope for wheeled vehicle technology.
This Blogs obsession with naff vehicles is heading towards Richard North’s Supertuc pimping level, the ranger is a fundementally flawed layout for high mobility, just having 8×8 is not enough, they have to be layed out to balance loading across all 4 pairs, on the ranger the front pair has to take the entire load of the engine, transmission and forward armour, on anything but hard road it’s stuffed.
As for it being blast tedted, MOD blast testing involves a series of more than a dozen test blasts, both under hull and roadside, it has not been tested in that kind of detail.
8×8 is probably the answer, but the current LAVs are not, the BAe RG-35 in it’s proposed 8×8 version probably is, the Articulated loader idea has been put forward before (in fact before the UK had any MRAPs at all), but why would you choose Volvo when JCB makes a similar chassis.
Oh, and as for Centaur, throw a 4th pair of wheels forward of the cab and it’s almost exactly the chassis the MOD suggested as the style of the future protected vehicle a while back.
The BAe RG35 looks a good vehicle. Room for a full section, section and supplies with gunners to boot. The kind of vehicle that could sustain the section for days. A infantry company would need – what 10 of these to be fully mobile ?
The BAe RG35 has a ambulance version. Could it also be made into a self protected flat bed, water carrier or even fuel carrier. That would be a huge bonus logistics, infantry fighting and transport vehicle – across the board for integration – parts – servicing.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_wheeled_vehicle_uk/rg35_bae_systems_protected_multi-purpose_fighting_vehicle_british_army_united_kingdom_technical_data.html
I see and agree with the mobility concern mentioned by Grey I’ve always thought wheeled vehicles especially tall ones like MRAP’s or similar should not be going truly off road they need to stay on the beaten path. I’ve got a habit of being too polite or cautious at times so being honest I think the Ranger is a much better MRAP and fine for situations where a road or something resembling a road is available. Off road I think I would rather be in a not so mine protected tracked vehicle so I don’t become a 3 metre high bloody massive target and put my arse on the line trying to dig myself out. Therefore for mobility you need to use tracked vehicles hence why I asked about tracked vehicles and what would be available ideally just more of the FRES SV protected mobility variants or possibly Warthog or a modern tracked APC. However I do also have my doubts about Warthog and the articulated tracked vehicles in general they do have their niche but hey admin said it first so I’ll hide behind him.
Speaking honestly if we are countering a mine threat we use an MRAP such as ranger, if we are peacekeeping we could use a variety of vehicles including a proper 8×8 for mobility at the loss of some mine protection. If it’s a full blown shooty war there is to me only one choice and that is the traditional tracked vehicle families for proper all terrain mobility with high levels of armour protection. However because we don’t have the money or simply don’t want to spend it we are left with the option of fudging it to try and reduce the number of body bags coming home at the end of the day. (Maybe that was a bit too blunt?)
I like some of the ideas in that Volvo concept. Hybrid electric drive is a great idea – at least in principle. Remove all those drive shafts that add weight, take up space within your hull and act as armour piercing spears when blown off by mines and IED’s. Replace springs and dampers with hydrogas units that are fully external to the hull and can be made sacrificial. Build the hull from ballistic plastic to save weight ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread206673/pg1 ). Britain is actually full of companies that understand these things; from Horstmann Suspension systems to McLaren Racing via Supacat and Ricardo.
Grey, fair point about spreading the load but playing devils advocate for a moment, what is the engine position on 100% percent of the conventional 8×8 armoured vehicles on the market?
I don’t claim any great insight and understand the articulated concept has been proposed many time overs the years and I think I make the point that it is nothing new in the post, it was just thinking out aloud really. Yes, I remember seeing the MoD future concepts stuff with the articulated vehicle that spews rifle armed mini UAV’s all over the place!
Because it was just thinking out aloud I didnt pick Volvo for any particular reason but they have a long track record, invented the things, have a specialist division with some snappy videos and have done the Archer. No doubt JCB could do it, the donor vehicles might the the 700 series articulated dump trucks.
I don’t think I was advocating anything, just asking a question and bouncing a few ideas forward, have you seen our posts on the Super Tucano by the way, unfashionably against the idea.
There is a production armoured vehicle that is lightweight and made entirely of the same composite material that the Qinetiq demonstrator is constructed from.
It doesn’t get much in the way of positive press.
There is a lot of interesting materials technology out there but in general, new technology funding seems to be on the decline, at least in the UK, as operations, PFI’s and large capital projects hoover up the budget
“This Blogs obsession with naff vehicles is heading towards Richard North’s Supertuc pimping level, the ranger is a fundementally flawed layout for high mobility, just having 8×8 is not enough, they have to be layed out to balance loading across all 4 pairs, on the ranger the front pair has to take the entire load of the engine, transmission and forward armour, on anything but hard road it’s stuffed.”
And where exactly do our ultra mobile Vectors and Jackels keep getting our soldiers killed?
Hard Roads?
Mobility is only protection if you are mobile.
The British Army is nopt mobile in Afghanistan, and is unlikely to be mobile anywhere else either.
If your going from Base A to Base B either in a Fuel Truck or acting as an armed guard for one, you will be on what could loosely be termed a “road” and you need mine protection a damned site more than you need the ability to climb a water fall.
If your going from Base A to Ambush Point C, then yes, mobility is a valid concept.
Men are dead because people have refused to accept logistics runs are not high mobility and cannot be high mobility.
Accept it.
On to vehicles.
Option A
I dont think theres much chance of rthe current fleet being improved much more without essentialy redesigning them from scratch.
I think they’re awesome and well up to the task of protecting CLP’s in Ghanners, but looking to the future, nope.
Option B
BORING!
Option C
The Ranger looks like it could be a very good platform, if you’ll allow me to pontificate.
I actually agree with Greys point about the Rangers front section, all that weight, only two wheels.
Why not have a 4 wheel front section, or even a tracked front section.
Well, both obviously.
If you look at the Ranger Cutaway Picture, and imagine thats an autonomous section, with 4 wheels, its big enough to have a driver and a remote gunner, is blast protected and could be light enough to maintain some mobility.
As an outrider for a CLP, what else would you need?
Then, for the fire support ranger, you could plug in a rear module that contains a dual 40mm grenade launcher and ammo, probably only need an additional two wheels, wouldnt be as mobile, but its mostly on road.
Command variant might need to be longer, so it would be a 4 wheel module unit, again, it just plugs into the front.
Presumably a bigger fire support variant would be a 4 or even 6 wheel rear module, attached to a 4 wheel front module, enough space for a remote machine gun at the front and rear with a remote grenade launcher in the middle?
Why not have a flat bed module that we can load ISO shipping containers onto.
Now we have a blast protected fuel/stores carrier, about as mobile as and shares most componants with its escorts.
At the end of the day, a patrol is as mobile as its least mobile unit, just like a fleet is as fast as its slowest ship.
The armed guards have to follow the convoy they are guarding, wether you stick them in Vectors or Challenger 2′s, they still have to follow the commerical truck along the road.
I suppose I’ve sort of argued convert the Ranger into Option E, and make the front unit deployable on its own.
Theres always the possibility that the rear unit could be destroyed by enemy action, in my scenario, the front could unplug and drive off.
Or a front unit could be destroyed, and a scout module could come and pick up the rear.
Just a quick question.
The RG35 interior looks very cramped.
Is that a normal sized space?
Bigger?
Smaller?
I’m not sure I’d fancy my chances of squeezing out of that whilst being shot at.
It is unlikely that Fres will be the program under which future vehicles are procured. The Fres programme, in the sense of a family of vehicles built on a common chassis, while a laudable objective, always faced fatal difficulties. A fact that has seemingly been realised, although after so much has been emotionally invested in it, no one is going to admit it.
The first problem was that no manufacturer has or had such a family of vehicles that met the MoD’s requirements.
Secondly, no manufacturer was likely to go out and invest in the creation such a family based only on the hope that they might win a contract, especially if the MoD expected competitive bids.
Inevitably then, after a good deal of frustration and vacillation over what it is they are buying, a decision is made to buy what is optimistically thought to be the first of the family, in the hope that the basic chassis of that vehicle will evolve into the other family members.
But what then happens if in designing the second, third or fourth of the family it transpires that a rival manufacturer has a superior product? Do you continue with Fres or spoil the party by buying the better product?
Then there is the timing problem.
The period between the first vehicle going into service and the last vehicle of the fifth iteration is going to service will be in excess of ten years; so long in fact that the first vehicle is already retiring before the objective of a common fleet is fully achieved. The longevity of a pure common fleet will be momentary, as will the logistical benefits of the Fres concept.
Lastly, even if it were possible to find a way around all of the above there is the finance problem and it is surprising no one has blown the whistle on this. Imagine the minister trotting out of his office in Whitehall across the road to the Treasury, to see the Chancellor. The conversation might go along the lines of – Hi Gordon (or George if you prefer), the army has this really interesting notion that we scrap our vehicle fleet, some of which you have only just paid for, and buy a new one. It will cost a bit more than two aircraft carriers complete with F35s but not as much as a brand new Trident.
What do you think? – Need you ask.
Richard
Funding isnt really that big an issue
The CVR(T) family was over 4000 units was it not?
We’ve bought MAYBE 1000 vechicles for Afghanistan and Iraq havent we?
None of them costing anything like what FRES was supposed to cost
Didnt all the CVR(T)s use the same engine, transmission, suspension, gearbox, tracks ect?
Commonality is surely doable then?
Obviously its harder to do so over a fleet from landrover to challenger, but across a smaller family.
Even if it took 10 years to introduce a FRESish vehicle with commonality across the range, military vehicles can and do remain in service for 30 years, longer even.
Yes, FRES is a joke, no army could fight where its basic workhorses are £15m minimum, no one here is making that laughable suggestion.
DominicJ… Well said I have heard some nonsense on new vehicles before but Grey’s last comments really got me angry. I actually think Richard North has some very good thoughts on the current state of our military vehicles.
For too long we have relied on vehicles that our wholly unsuitable for the role that they are being used for. The recent purchases of Vector and Jackal and the continued use of the like WMIK and Snatch in situations where they are NOT suited have lead to many avoidable deaths and serious injury’s.
Our reaction to the threat we have faced in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, has been and continues to be nothing short of a disgrace!!! We have done too little too late and that continues. Remember, if the Army had had its way we would not I repeat NOT have had the Mastiff and Ridgebacks.
What has frustrated me is that before we got involved with FRES, the MRAV programme was looking like it was going to result in a pretty useful vehicle, namely the BOXER. Like Nicholas I believe the BOXER would have been a very vehicle for us to have. Yes it’s not perfect, neither are any of the others and I include Ranger in that list, but FFS lets just stop talking and changing the bloody goal posts and actually buy something. The vehicles we currently have in service are not good enough. A combination of Ranger, Boxer and the LPPV can do most of not everything we need now. If you want to engage in high-end War-Fighting then tracks are better and let’s use Warriors and FRES SVs backed up with Viking2s and the like.
In my view there is no place for Landrovers and Pinz’s and the likes of Jackal have a limited niche / SF role. We need to re-equip with a more suitable vehicles. Ranger/Boxer and Ocelot/SPV400 are as good as any.
Whilst I am on a rant, our SV (Support Vehicle) fleet is far from ideal. We bought 80-90% of the SX version (this is the low spec civvy based vehicle not the HX full military spec) and neither of them has been designed with protection in mind and are very susceptible to IEDs etc. Surely, we know that logistics vehicles will always be a target and need to same protection as patrol vehicles. So, we need dedicated protected transport vehicles like the AVA and TMV.
Phil – Grey’s comments were fine, what made you so angry ? The original article mentions mobility, Grey was pointing out that in his opinion, Ranger might not be that highly mobile.
Dominic then goes on to point out that for Convoy escort you don’t need high mobility. Fair point too, in which case just for Afghanistan we use what we have, for the ‘crappy’ excuses for roads, and Warthog for off-road, which is what it has been expressly purchased for.
As for Dominic’s comment: “Men are dead because people have refused to accept logistics runs are not high mobility and cannot be high mobility.”
Well, actually, you might say men are dead because we refuse to think in three dimensions. Before anyone flames me, I know not all FOB’s have Chinook capable landing sites, and even a Chinook has a limited load carrying capability, but more helicopters of various sizes would keep logistics off the roads. Look at US use of helo’s in Vietnam, and Soviet use of helo’s in their Afghan adventure.
Finally you have to look at the bigger picture ? Is the isolated FOB in “indian country”, with its attendant logistic and support issues the best way to conduct the fight ?
Indeed, I disagree with what Richard North wants the armed forces to do, but saying he doesnt know what equipment they would need to do what he would wish is just wrong.
I did kind of forget about the LPPV when I wrote my comment earlier, but, assuming we are going to be fighting Afghanistan like operations for the forseable future, we need two fleets.
Firstly a tracked fighting fleet, which frankly should be Challenger and Warrior, with turret swapped variants, nothing else belongs on a modern battlefield. Imagine if the IDF had deployed CVR(T)’s to Lebanon in 2006…
And then a wheeled COIN fleet, which would be a light MRAP like we looked at in the light vehicles, a chasis and drivers cabin with swapable rear modules and a medium/heavy MRAP, I think something along the lines of a militarised E, but with a self contained front section.
That can then carry around a rear module as required, command station, MLRS, palletised MRE’s.
It cant hurt to mention that if all the Dry Stores Transports also have a remote operated .5 inch machine gun, the need for additional forces to provide protection from the enemy gets a damned site smaller too.
I realise I’ve repeatedly proven my complete lack of understanding of ground forces, but, say,
6 LPPV’s with direct fire module, so forward fireing GPMG and all round HMG (or maybe just a remote turret HMG)
2 MPPV with direct fire module, front and rear HMG turrets and central grenade turret
1 MPPV with support fire module, front a rear dual 81mm mortar turrets
1 MPPV with UAV command module, 4 UAV stations to control a warrior’ish UAV, primarily for looking at stuff and directing other people, but also carrying 4 hellfire missiles incase it needs to shoot stuff.
Could you laser designate a target for an 81mm mortar?
1 MPPV with Command Module, officeree type people to do officeree type stuff
10 MPPV with Infantry Module, 1 8 man section per module. I dont know how many embarked soldiers would usualy tag along.
Thats 20 vehicles,
Could they escort 40 MPPV’s with 10-15 tons of stores each? (A commerical HGV has usable payload of about 30t, i guessed half)
Cant see why not
How long would 600t of stores last a patrol base?
I entertain no delusions thats a perfect make up, so wont cry if anyone fixes it.
Presumably you could swap some of MPPV section carriers for LPPV fireteam carriers on a 1:2 basis
70 HMG
2 40mm grenade launchers
4 81mm automatic mortars
4 UAV’s
80 Infantry Soldiers
600t of stores
Ok I may have overdone the HMG’s.
Jed
I may have misuderstood Greys comment, so my jumping down his through may be a bit premature, sincere appologies if it was.
My initial reading was that he was making the usualy MoD arguement that we dont need to be able to survive a mine strike, we can just use our awesome mobility to avoid mines.
Now this is true, if your an invading army flying across the country and rolling up the enemy army as you go.
Its not true if you have 10,000 troops scattered around a foreign country in isolated outposts, all of whom need food, fuel and ammo delivered on a regular basis.
Men are dead because people pretended we could avoid IED’s in a “mobility” HGV.
Helicopters have their place, but it isnt delivering jerry cans full of diesel, they just cost to much.
Does anyone know how much a Chinnok costs per hour to operate?
I am willing to unleash my Rant At Lewis Paige again over this.
The Americans and Soviets are richer than us, they can afford to helicopter in a lot more stuff, sucks, but there we go.
Do I agree with the strategy, well, no, I’m a commited strategic raider, but I can either leave until you all talk about stuff I think is the best option, be “That Guy” who stands in the corner shouting your all wrong I have the knowledge of the one true path, or I can say, well, I dont think this is the right strategy, but if we adopt it, would X, Y or Z work?
Jed, what made me so angry about Grey’s comments were (and maybe I assumed his comments were as described by DominicJ i.e. more of the MoD clap trap about mobility is the way to avoid IEDs) Sorry when you are going down the same track and/or the enemy know you are coming and can lay IEDs/Ambush you, mobility is no F’ing use. I am sick to the back teeth of people trying to justify the unjustifiable.
The continued use of vehicles like Snatch, Pinzgauers/Vectors, WMIK and even Jackals in the current circumstances we face in Afghanistan is utter madness. My anger is also out of frustration that nothing seems good enough, we are f’ing around while men an women are lets be frank getting blown to pieces. On the face of it the Ranger is a massive improvement over the Mastiff and Ridgebacks, yes maybe it could have better mobility, well we should have bought the bloody BOXER then, no that wasn’t good enough either. I don’t care which vehicle we buy (caveat.. as long as it does the job). Buy RG35s… just let’s get something better than bloody Snatch and the like. We have been sat on our hands for too long over this. Industry now seems to have responded to what is required and there are a plethora of very good vehicles that offer both protection AND mobility but are we buying them? NO and comments like Grey’s that this new vehicle is fundamentally flawed or and I quite “Not a fan of the SPV (and frankly despise the ocelot” What!!! How can you despise a vehicle that is still in development and really we know precious little about. Does Grey have some insight that the rest of us don’t? That is very strong language.
So that’s why I am so annoyed… Breath 123
I see that the Ranger is the subject of an article in the current issue of “Soldier” magazine (May 2010 – available on line). The article, entitled “Lone Ranger” includes the statement that the Ranger is “one of a number of concept vehicles currently being considered by the MOD.” So maybe the Ministry’s interest is still active and perhaps some day the vehicle will enter service. It is rather unsusual for “Soldier” magazine” to review any item of equipment unless it is currently in service or being considered very seriously.
Dominic and Phil – I totally understand what both of you are saying.
Dominic – Soviets were, and Yanks are ‘richer’ than us, true. Chinooks are phenomenally expensive for operating costs compared to armoured trucks – also true.
To Phil’s point – driving down the same route (because its the only route) to supply outposts means “mobilitity” is “no F’ing use” – also very true.
SO
Government has to put up, or shut up AND military leadership has to do the same. If you can’t afford to equip properly, then you should not be there. If your doctrine is constrained by budget then you are in the shit, no two ways about it. So, Chinook is way more expensive, but this is not a war of national survival, and thus the cost per hour of operating Chinooks or any other helo has to be seen in proportion to the cost in blood of IED ‘victims’ or ambushes on road bound convoys.
So please don’t think I am whining at either of you, but this is not about vehicles per se, it is about strategy, doctrine and tactics, the ‘holistic view’ (or the “big picture”). Sure there is no ‘perfect’ way to supply ‘combat outposts’ – fine, but who is asking why we need combat outposts ? This leads us back to questioning Gen. McChrystal and the ‘population centric COIN’ doctrine….. and so on, and so forth……
Wow, didn’t expect my comments to get such a reaction, the point I was trying (and perhaps failing given the reaction) to make is that while yes, the armoured box we put on wheels must be designed for optimum troop protection in the desired weight class, the format of the vehicle should also be optimised to maximise the capabilities of the vehicle.
The british armed forces are never going to have a bespoke fleet with 3 or 4 vehicles to cover a spectrum of capabilities in the same class, so the vehicles we choose in each class will always be a compromise, that means we pick the capability that’s most important in that class, make that the centrepoint of the design and then, as much as possible, optimise the other features around it.
This did not happen with MRAP gen 1+2, nor did it happen with LAVs (Striker to weak to stay light, Boxer too heavy sacrificing mobility), Now some vehicles are starting to turn up which are hybrids of the MRAP and the LAV (the LAZAR BVT for one), and some people are tying to improve the existing MRAP design solution (the Ranger etc), this does not mean however they have created the optimal solution to the problem.
If I were doing the buying I could cut back to 3-4 wheeled chassis types (MAN HX/SX both of which can be armoured exactly the same BTW, SUPACAT/HMT, RG-35 and perhaps a class above that), excluding of course task specific gear like the 1070 heavy transporter etc.
As far as tracks go, Straight Swap CVRTs, FV4xx’s and in time warrior for FRES tracked and Warthog variants, job done.
Not exactly rocket science.
Oh, and while the CVRTs should go straight to civ disposal, everything else goes to war storage (enough empty RAF hangers) for the next time we need it.
Sorry, forgot about C2, AS90 and MLRS, powerpack and smoothbore upgrade for C2, 52cal 155m upgrade for AS90 (with kit eventually transferring to ASCOD chassis), MLRS carrier replaced with ASCOD DONAR (straight kit swap)
Any other questions?
Hi Grey
I always try and encourage people to play nice!
Will be doing indirect fires kit later but didnt we try a 52cal barrel in AS90?
You right, there is no such thing as an optimal solution because threats change, I think that was the root of FRES problems, trying to be the perfect solution that will never exist no matter that manufacturers powerpoints say.
Jed, you are absolutely right it is not just about vehicles. Our tactics and doctrine have been exposed as well. There are some very serious questions to be asked about the way our military have been operating in both Iraq and now Afghanistan. Discussion for another topic I suggest.
I must say I do not believe that, certainly for small scale operations (small compared to all out war) surely we can afford to have a range of vehicles? If we are not prepared to equip our forces properly then DON’T put them in harms way!
Grey and others seem to want to wait for some “holy grail” vehicle. It’s not going to happen. We must get out of the habit that we buy a piece of kit then expect it last essentially for ever. NO, we must continually upgrade and replace our weapons and vehicles. This is why we are in this mess now. The Army is trying to have everything in one vehicle or family of vehicles i.e. FRES. MRAV was heading in the right direction, Tracer was going to produce an up-to-date CRV(T) replacement and we always were going to need to replace the likes of LandRover and Pinz’s and the MRAPs should have just been added to the fleet.
It’s this delay and indecision (Whilst the vehicles we have in theatre are not right and our service men and women are dying as a consequence) that I find so abhorrent.
To go back to your statement about doctrine and tactics, yes lets have more helicopters and think about how we are deploying our troops; but in the meantime give them equipment that is going to offer them at least some form of protection, unile most of the fleet we have in theatre.
As for Grey’s point about the MAN SX/H. Are we talking about the MAC (Modular Armoured Cab?) If so has the UK actually bought this? All I see are standard SX/HX with a bit of BAR armour and a turret. I don’t know if they have fitted a bullet proof windscreen, and the protection from mines and IEDs will be virtually zero. ~Even the MAC does not appear to provide much in the way of IED protection, which is what is required. Bolting on armour as an after thought is NOT the answer. That has to have been designed in from the outset. So although the MAN trucks were a massive improvement over the previous fleet, when they are being used in the middle of a COIN operation they are highly vulnerable. Yes this means we need to spend more money (that we apparently don’t have but can find for supporting 16 year old single mums and Romanian Gypsies and the like), so once again I say, provide the equipment we need OR get OUT!!!
Admin said “didnt we try a 52cal barrel in AS90?”
I believe that was what became known as the Braveheart version of the AS90. I am not sure how many were converted.
I agree with grey that C2 needs powerpack and smoothbore gun upgrade. I has already ben given additional armour and RCWS. I am not sure about the FCS. I believe that was already the same as the M1A1 / Leo2 but I could be wrong. I also agree with Grey that having chosen the ASCOD we should now make full use of the chassis and enable it to be the common basis for all the supporting weapns and systems, like MLRS and so forth. As the soviets have been doing with BMP and BMD series and the BTRnn series of wheeled vehicles.
52cal AS90 was tried before as the braveheart, idea was binned in ’02 using some excuse about the charges being too sensitive, but since the PzH2000 and the ARCHER both use 52cal barrels I don’t think it would be an issue if they really wanted to get it done.
I’ll save my other Arty thoughts until it gets a post of its own
Is this why we have no real decision made, there is no real census.
I would just approach BAE (or any company) say we will buy all our vehicles from you.
100% designed, built and produced in the UK. We want one base platform, across all these variants – make it we will buy. http://www.facebook.com/pages/English-Dragon/109897175696110?v=photos#!/photo.php?pid=216933&id=109897175696110
Time is being wasted, money and lives and no system is going to appease everyone and be 100% perfect.
As long as the system can be adapted overtime. It is best to get out blocks than just reliving the race in your mind after the starter gun has already gone off – “what if I get it wrong” – well what if you just procrastinate.
Fiale,
My thoughts exactly… Just buy sonething and stop this endless series of failed projects/programmes. My fear though is we have missed the boat. If we couldn’t re-equip our armed forces during times of plenty of the hell are we going to do it now?
I really do fear for the cuts that are going to be made in the defence budget. I think really good things like PECOC and FIST may get canned. The death by a thousand cuts rather than just ditch big items like F35 and the Carriers.
Hi chaps…
Saw this on Janes Defence Weekly yesterday
*CVR(T) family to re-enter production for British Army
Negotiations are under way between the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and BAE Systems to restart production of hulls for the British Army’s Combat Vehicle…
30-Apr-2010
http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml
What does everyone think?
I am staggered.. If you were going to resort to this you should have done it ages ago. If they want a stop gap, then, surely the Stormer (being more modern and slightly bigger and dare I say better) would have been the one to restart production of.
Thanks Phil, am going top blog that
Admin be careful just posted it on ARRSE and was warned about OPSEC!!!! What….
No idea why they think this information which is in the public domain could ampact on Operational Security at all.
Quote
“As for Grey’s point about the MAN SX/H. Are we talking about the MAC (Modular Armoured Cab?) If so has the UK actually bought this? All I see are standard SX/HX with a bit of BAR armour and a turret. I don’t know if they have fitted a bullet proof windscreen, and the protection from mines and IEDs will be virtually zero. ~Even the MAC does not appear to provide much in the way of IED protection, which is what is required. Bolting on armour as an after thought is NOT the answer.”
Without going into a big introduction, i have had a lot of experience with UK SV MAN, having been with the Project team at the start of the SV story and also just returned from a 6 month tour of Afghanistan. The comment above needs correcting. We dont use the SX version in Afghanistan, only the Danes use their SX EPLS version. Without going into OPSEC, its not “a bit of BAR armour and a turret”, its actually quite well protected with base armour (admittedly add-on) BAR armour, protected weapon station and additional protection measures. And it certainly has bullet proof windscreens! I have seen blast damaged SV’s and they do the job. Ask any soldier who drives them and they are happy to gou outside the wire in them. I have also driven the Danes SV EPLS, which is a better veh to drive being the SX version. There are a lot of Protected Mine vehicles there at the moment and the UK have just deployed their Buffalo variants.
Welcome to Think Defence PetOp
Must admit to never hearing a bad thing about the MAN SV apart from a few management software niggles when first introduced and know a couple of people who have been contacted whilst driving them who rave about their protection.
Are the wreckers based on the SX?
Here is a list I compiled a while ago
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/09/british-army-vehicles/
The wreckers (SVR) are based ont he SX chassis. Yes there were occasional software issues early on, but now ironed out.
PetOp,
Judging from your experience, you appear to be a real expert in the field of logistic vehicles. I wonder whether I could ask you a question. If the information required is classified or sensitive, please ignore this request. It ought not to be, as these are “B” and not “A” category vehicles.
Is it the case that the MAN SV range will comletely replace the older Bedfords and DAFs, or will a few of those older vehicles be retained in special roles? I was thinking particularly of the replacement for the Bedford Light Recovery Vehicle (LRV). Will that be on a new MAN chassis, for instance? One is surely needed as lighter forces cannot take the heavy SV recovery vehicle everywhere with them.
mike i think the correct term is the beddy shite lol, i would use that to tow all the RB44′s into one big pile to burn them, god I hated driving that!!
ilike the idea of the stormers being remade, hopefully with new engines/transmission, i posted a photo on here a while back of a bridgelayer version that was herc portable.
ps it was the reccy mechs that called it that, not me guv!
to a reccy mech any wagon is shite unless it has room for bunks and a three piece
The Bedford light recovery variant is not to be replaced. As in it will be phased out (if not already). Our vehicles are now, in weight terms, too large for the Bedford to recover anyway. Those “light” vehicles you mention are now not really light, what with comms, ECM, armour etc, so the SV(R)is ideal for the task. I think money will negate a replacement anyway.
As for SV replacing all the legacy vehicles…yes, but not in the numbers of the old fleet. Whole Fleet Management is the new beast so instead of fleets of SV on the Pde Square doing not much, you get a small fleet of training vehicles with the majority in sheds somewhere. Well thats the idea, in theory it doesnt always work.