Well, at least for the demonstration phase
The demonstration phase is for 7 prototypes and a total value of £500 million.
Yes, that £500 million for 7 prototypes, it’s not a spelling mistake.
Inflation eh, the last time we tried to replace CVR(T) with something new, the TRACER programme only 8 years ago, it only cost £131 million and that was for a similar development phase but with two manufacturing consortia and two separate designs.
It will carry three crew members and have mounted both a new type of 40mm cannon and a machine gun. It will replace the Scimitar armoured fighting vehicle. Interestingly, work will continue alongside this programme to update existing armoured reconnaissance vehicles in service in Afghanistan, such as the Scimitar, to maintain their operational capabilities.
Commenting on the award, Peter Luff MP, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support said
Military commanders have stressed the importance of having a wide range of vehicles from which they can select the most appropriate for specific tasks.
“This contract is a major step towards providing an additional fleet of combat vehicles, capable of undertaking operations in the most demanding terrain and fully incorporating lessons from current conflicts.
Work on this phase of the programme will go ahead alongside the wider Strategic Defence and Security Review which will make sure that the capabilities that we are investing in are those best placed to provide the security we need for the future.”
We have covered this issue in a number of posts; here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and the depressing background spanning 40 years, here
The Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, said:
“Today’s announcement is the result of months of hard work by a wide range of stakeholders across MOD and General Dynamics UK enabling us to reach this point, ahead of the original plan.
The work that has been done has been, and continues to be, subject to the most careful scrutiny to ensure the decision is the right one for the long-term needs of the Army.”
Master-General of the Ordnance, Major General Bill Moore, said:
“This is a very good moment for the Army. Scout will provide a much better capability to find and track the enemy, so necessary for the successful prosecution of operations in the 21st century.
Scout will also deliver improved situational awareness, increased firepower, more protection and enhanced mobility, and it will be a key capability for land operations over the next few decades.”
The project trials will start in 2013.
This is my favourite part of the release
When this phase concludes the MOD will be in a position to place a production contract.
Assuming that the vehicle performs as per the specifications that is.
At the end of the trials phase the UK will have engaged in the FFLAV, TRACER and FRES programmes, spent in excess of one billion pounds on these and past/future upgrades to CVR(T) and still not have a single production replacement for a vehicle which will by then be over 43 years old and still in service.
This must rank as the single most inept procurement programme of all time.
On the MoD’s school report….
D-
Perhaps we shouldn’t be as grumpy, it’s progress after all.
Anyway, here are some pictures to be going on with because whilst based on the established ASCOD, FRES Scout is still a paper design.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
80 Comments
ooooooooo the new warrior looks nice; what’s that sorry..it’s not, it’s a reccy vehicle, yeah right!!!! so just buy some fenneks (small, light, underslung-able) and re-role a cav armour unit you dummies!!
On the MoD’s school report….
D- !
Come off it Admin! I would say more like X certificate stuff. I could say why don’t they just by the turret and stick it on a warrior but I can’t be bothered.
Still we’re only buying 7 of them and they won’t be in service within 5 years and hey …what’s another 500 million quid, it’s not like we’re cash strapped or anything!
(anyway there is still time for the army to change it’s mind again)!!
Just buy the turret and stick it on a Warrior?
Not if you wanted it to work properly.
It wouldn’t fit.
It would be too heavy
The chassis probably couldn’t power it without modification
Why buy Fennek when Jackal is pretty much the same capability?
jackal and fennek the same? err no! designed as a reccy vehicle lower height equipped with full reccy equipment (not a bloke standing up with mk 1 eyeball) could be sarky and say it’s got a roof! jackal can be used as reccy but fennek is designed from the outset to do it They are different vehicles, still we’re behind the curve as they are doing a fennek 2 now.
BAE took a decision to abandon further development of Warrior in favour of CV90 and then produced a recce design derived from the ’90 that was inferior to the GD offering. There was no chance of using Warrior in this role; moreover the running gear is not ideal and the turret ring too small to allow a turret with all the desired sensors. If you talk to anyone who has actually used ASCOD it is an effective, reliable vehicle with excellent cross country performance. It has much more growth potential than the 90, not least because its gearbox allows growth to over 40 tonnes. It is worth stressing that the basic SV weighs in at 34 tonnes (equal to an early T-34 or Sherman) which is more than the all up weight for the developed Warrior with extra armour.
In retrospect TRACER would have been a poor choice for current operations, since it was effectively just an enlarged CVR(T) with marginally improved armor – I would not have wanted to go to war in one. It is easy to blame MOD and BAE for all these design failures, but the real problem has been the Army. Its conceptual models have been questionable – the idea that medium weight vehicles of around 19-25 tonnes could be flown rapidly to trouble spots in Africa and then mount networked operations against ill-armed enemies – and the resulting requirements were poorly thought out and sometimes just wrong. Such vehicles would not have any chance against Afghani IEDs. Any finger pointing should perhaps be in the direction of the doctrine and force development ‘experts’. In the circumstances FRES SV seems a reasonably good choice.
Fat Man, welcome to Think Defence
I think the general consensus is a plague on all their houses. If you look at some of the previous posts I think most of us are pretty agnostic about the choice between CV90 and ASCOD because we haven’t seen the requirements or used them for example.
The main concern is that the choice was a political/industrial one rather than military.
Personally, I think the Puma would have been a better choice, its more modern than either ASCOD or CV90, is built for deployability by A400 and could easily be fitted with the CTA 40mm
As for BAe, I think they have put a lot more into FRES than they got out and the current policy of anything but BAe is going to backfire spectacularly.
Not sure TRACER would have been any worse than CVR(T) in Afghanistan because it was designed for growth and would have been quite mature by now.
I think the turret ring size of Warrior is over played as a reason for not using it because it would not be a huge stretch to redesign the upper section so it could accommodate the LANCER turret
£500million for 7 prototypes and a 3 year programme, what have they been smoking. This is an adaption of an existing design, not a new build from scratch.
How is this for an idea, we have accepted we are going to be reducing armoured units so will have an excess of Warriors. Take the excess ones out for a comprehensive refit, top plate, turret, engine, transmission etc etc
Wonder how many we could get for £500million, more than 7 I fancy
Crystal balls though, never seem to work when you need them!
Puma appears to be an excellent vehicle, but is not yet in service and remains unproven. The original ASCOD has a good track record and has shown that the basic design is sound. FRES SV shares the Puma gearbox, but there would be serious problem using Puma for the FRES role:
* It lacks a manned turret, which is fundamental for the recce role. A recce vehicle whose crew are all inside the hull (like Puma) is highly reliant on sensors, which are not infallible. And the Germans are not proposing to use Puma for recce duties …
* Puma would have needed considerable re-development to meet the recce requirement.
* It is an extremely expensive vehicle.
* All the design would have been done in Germany – FRES SV is effectively a British design based on earlier foreign design work.
* The German manufacturer is not established in the UK, while General Dynamics has a significant track record of working with MOD, the Army and local industrial suppliers.
* It is very unlikely that the Germans would have allowed license building in the UK when they have only one Puma order from the Bundeswehr (and that for only 400 vehicles) – they would have all come from German production lines.
* The cost of Puma would have been entirely in foreign exchange, which hardly helps the balance of payments, and British suppliers would have received little work.
Yes, of course it would have been preferable for an all-British solution, but once the last Tory government sold off all the national R&D facilities like Chertsey we put ourselves in the hands of the commercial market. BAE played their hand badly, while GD sees to have made a pretty decent offer with the ASCOD 2. The UK will retain design and manufacturing skills, although not at Newcastle (the old Vickers tank works might have done for Chieftain, but modern vehicles require a clean, modern factory environment). The UK could have done a lot worse – and it should be remembered that BAE was planning on manufacturing all the CV-90 FRES hulls in Sweden and simply adding the turret in the UK. GD’s offer means a lot more British jobs and they won this competition on technical and industrial merit, not because someone disliked the colour of the CV-90.
Dont come around here talking bloody common sense!
The only thing I would say in response is about the manned turret, yes it is essential for the recce role but the recce role as defined by the UK several decades ago but I guess the manned v unmanned turret debate is a bloody big one. YEs the Germans aren’t using Puma in the recce role, what are they using, its certainly not a 40 tonne Puma/Warrior/ASCOD/CV90 style vehicle.
Perhaps close and formation recce need different vehicles and ASCOD makes a lot of sense when combined with something smaller like Jackal, something built on the LPPV or even a fennek style design
Not sure, perhaps the subject of a future post, remember, we have an open door here if you fancy a pop
that is some poor graphics, i could do better with blender!
Odd Question
Warrior is more or less on its last legs now, or should be anyway.
Considering FRES is going to weigh more than Wsrrior, shouldnt FRES be looking at replacing warrior as an IFV?
Or are looking at a Challenger sized IFV, like the Israeli Namer?
Or has nothing been thought out that far ahead?
I have another question: Is the Warrior upgrade now dustbinned?
The Warrior upgrade is still planned, the prototype turrets are under development (the BAE offering was at DVD last week), but under the present financial cloud there is now a strong argument for abandoning this work and electing to replace Warrior with a FRES SV variant. GD certainly thinks the answer is to use an AIFV version of the SV in this role. The trouble is that the FRES Scout turret is too large if you are going to carry infantry in the back. While the Scout can carry dismounts in addition to the 3 man crew, it cannot take an entire infantry section. The answer might be an externally mounted version of the 40 mm CTA gun and the French have a similar requirement for such a system to go on the VBCI APC.
The Army is moving towards a medium weight capability, including eventually replacing Challenger with a 120 mm gun version of the FRES SV. It is possible that the SV will become the only major tracked chassis in use in the period 2020-2040 and GD have already indicated that they are willing to offer hybrid electric drive to replace the MAN diesel.
There is a case for a Namer type vehicle, but this is very expensive, not easily deployable in strategic terms (the Israelis do not have to worry about long distance movements of heavy equipment), and not necessarily much safer. To some extent the answer relies on a new generation of armour (such as electric armour) and both hard and soft kill defensive aid systems. Having 6 inches of steel does not offer much more IED blast protection than just four. Namer suits the Israeli requirement to carry troops in a kinetic tank battle, but it it is difficult to see it on the streets of Sierra Leone or in other small scale operations – if the main threat is IEDs you should use an MRAP.
Fatman, thanks for that. I am slightly puzzled why the FRES Scout turret takes up so much internal volume as the advantage of the 40mm CTA gun is supposedly to take up less space.
Do you know if the FRES Scout turret could take a larger caliber weapon to provide Fire Support variant using same turret?
Perhaps we should forget new turret for Warrior and just plate over and fit a Samson RWS with the 40mm CTA Gun. Removing the turret would have the advantage of making the Warrior lighter (even up-armoured) and reduce loading on the drivetrain/gearbox/engine. Warrior would then replace Bulldog (presumably this is already envisaged) with ASCOD 2 Family.
To be more accurate, the problem is not the turret as such, but the size of the cage (the part that penetrates into the hull), which is surrounded by various electronic boxes for sensors. the CTA ammunition should be stored in the turret (historically storing ammunition above the turret ring has been seen as a potential danger, but the ammunition should meet insensitivity requirements). A simplified turret minus sensors might work with an infantry section, but it will still be very crowded, especially given the bulk of some new infantry weapons such as NLAW. You will note that Puma only carries a 6 man section plus a 3 man crew in a similar sized vehicle which does not have a penetrating turret, but the UK wants to retain an 8 man section. Warrior does this with 7 in the back plus a crew of 3, one of whom may dismount. This is of course part of the Namer argument – that you need the internal volume given by an MBT chassis and Warrior/Bradley/CV90/ASCOD type vehicles are simply too small to give both the volume and protection needed for 8 or 9 dismounts. If you look in the back of an empty Warrior or CV90 at an exhibition and then visualise 7 0r 8 soldiers in full combat kit you will see why the experience is a bit like getting into a sardine can – and why a direct hit by an anti-armour projectile can be very lethal.
Sorry, I should have added, no I don’t think the Rheinmetall-designed turret for SV will take a 120 mm smooth bore gun, because it is engineered so that the weapon is mounted in a separate forward compartment and isolated from the crew. I think it more likely that the Army will seek an autoloader or even an externally mounted gun, but that is just an guesstimate. It will be very space constrained if someone has to load the single piece (fixed) ammunition by hand, given the length of the round. Personally I have severe doubts about producing what is really just a medium tank to take on main battle tanks. That might also be a good subject for a separate thread.
if the SV is too small to take a full dismount squad, is there scope for a stretched ASCOD SV? its been mentioned that the drivetrain can accept +40t so surely it could take another few pairs of road wheels.
Fat Man; If the turret is Rheinmetall, why does the GD site say this:
“An advanced turret design which, because of its internal space and leading ergonomics, delivers improved survivability and fightability for its crew. General Dynamics UK has sub-contracted Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill to produce the turret.”?
Jackal vs. Fennek – both are 4×4 vehicles with similar weights, power-weight ratio and protection, although, as noted, Fennek has a roof. Jackal (or, more sensibly, LPPV, or even CLV Panther) could be fitted with a mast-mounted sensor ball for sneaky-beaky recce.
But recce isn’t all about sneaky-beaky. You may have to fight for information – a screen of HMGs on Hiluxs would slow down a Fennek-based recce unit – or you may need to counter a hostile recce unit, who could well be scooting about in BMPs, BMDs or similar-type cannon-armed vehicle
The WCSP programme continues, albeit delayed. Both contenders were at DVD (not just BAE’s), as was the LMUK FRES SV demonstrator turret for GD.
I thought the FRES Scout was a LANCER turret but not sure about Warrior, I know it would likely have as much commonality as possible but would it be the same design?
MrFred, have a look here for pics of a Jackal with mast mounted sneaky stuff
http://www.supacat.com/news/latest-news/q/date/2009/11/17/supacat-demonstrates-jackal-istar/
LANCE turret, perhaps? Rather than LANCER?
In any case, the FRES SV turret seen to date looks most unlike the LANCE turret.
It can’t be the same turret for both because Warrior has a really small turret ring while GDUK make much of ASCOD having a larger ring diameter, on top of which LMUKs Warrior turret looks like it re-uses some of the original structure.
I thought that I’d seen something like the Jackal ISTAR somewhere. It could do with a roof for less clemant climes. That would make it a more global capability.
The Lockheed Martin turret is based on a German design. Lance is already in use (for example with the Spanish Marines) and the role of LM is to integrate the turret with all the electronics necessary. LM is not into armour bashing as such. The LM press releases always stress that it is a British company and the design of the turret is British too, but just as GD UK has with ASCOD, they have ‘borrowed’ from an earlier design and improved it to incorporate CTA. The intention is that the turret will be about 75% British, but this is probably by value, not metal. As defence companies become increasingly international this sort of cross-fertilisation is becoming more and more common.
Incidentally, if you look at the three images supplied by MOD you will note that the bottom one has been accidentally reversed. Examining the upper two you can see that the gunner’s sight is on the left hand side, set well back (the gunner is behind and below it). The area in front is well sloped and heavily armoured. On the right hand side you can see that the armour is much flatter in appearance. The area behind this contains the ammunition magazine for the 40 mm CTA weapon. The feed device and the insensitive ammunition act in effect as a major slab of protective metal. The whole frontal part of the turret is separated by an armoured dividing wall from the rear part which contains the two crew. My experience of the Lance turret was that the crew area is actually extremely cramped and I would not have been happy trying to exit in a hurry: you need to be a contortionist – I just hope this has been improved for FRES SV.
didnt BAe make a great deal of noise about the safety ergonomics of the GD proposal
I completely agree that it is difficult to see the FRES SV as anything other than a more modern version of the Warrior. Though it may offer incremental improvements in armour, firepower and mobility, I do not believe it represents a substantial leap forward in technology or capability. In other words, I do not think that the FRES SV will be able to do anything that a Warrior couldn’t do, so the money it will cost may be better spent elsewhere. I would simply stick the 40 mm CTA gun on the Warrior and use it as both an IFV and SV.
I think we do need something like Fennek and Fennek 2. Highly mobile and well protected, it can also be fitted with a useful range of weapons – notably the .50 HMG, 40 mm GMG and other machine guns. Javelin ATGMs could also be fired from within. On a limited basis, this vehicle could fight for information. Fennek also offers a highly flexible platform that’s suitable not only for recce, but command, liaison and communications.
Jackal is simply a glorified SAS land-rover and totally inadequate in an IED environment as is an ordinary land-rover.
As in Football strategy, militarily we also have much to learn from the Germans. I am in awe of Boxer, Puma, Fennek and of course Leopard 2. They get it right first time every time.
as long as the main comms jnction box doesn’t involve a turret lift i’ll be happy! oh the joys of telling vm’s to start the lift, used to hate techs before we said that. nicholas am i right in thinking fnnek 2 is fully electric? good for sneaky sneaky catchy monkey!
speaking of which why can’t they use the same RTS as on the singapore terrex as that has a dual 7.62mm and 40mm HMG.
ps with all the sensor kit on a jackal wouldn’t there be a wee bit of screen glow going on without a roof?
BAE complained about the hatch size for the LM Warrior offering being too small and the structure being inadequate. (struck me as very unprofessional)
Jackal has a substantial amount of underbody shaping and armour that is not immediately obvious and it’s a great deal more survivable than a land rover. Plus we’ve got loads so we don’t have to buy any more. Or we could use LPPV, which is already in the pipeline. Similar size and ballistic protection (better mine protection) and just needs a sensor mast added.
Boxer? The daft thing is that a decent proportion of the specs and design came from the UK participation. Never mind, let’s invest in products that don’t have to obey those pesky laws of physics.
FRES SV can do one critical thing that Warrior can’t: Be produced in quantity sufficient to replace CVR(T). Warrior is still needed for Armoured Infantry, so there might be a hundred or so spare – not enough.
Then there’s the minor things like generator capacity, drive train growth and electronic architecture that would be a real pain to integrate into Warrior.
The one thing I cannot understand is the CT40. It’s quite large and heavy. Swept volume may be small but there’s this bleeding great big monster of a lump of metal that puts the rounds into the gun. What’s wrong with a belt-feed?
here is an outside thought for you then
If the SDR sees a big drop in armoured, armoured infantry and FR then what do we do with that surplus kit and doesnt that actually reduce the total numbers needed anyway.
Wonder how much putting GVA, a new powerpack, double pin tracks and transmission into a warrior would cost?
Plus a bit of redesign to accommodate a wider ring
In the same style as Bulldog, is this actually doable. Bulldog was a pretty big transformation for not a lot. In fact, I think there is still useful life left in Bulldog but thats another story
Must admit not really crunched any numbers for FRES SV because of the uncertainty around the final state post SDR but does anyone want to hazard a guess on total numbers required based on a one to one basis today
I tend to agree that the FRES SV is not a giant step forward, but the simple fact is that the production tooling for Warrior no longer exists and the cost of rebuilding existing and heavily used Warriors (over 20 years old already) would rival buying a brand new vehicle. Moreover ordering FRES SV gives the chance to standardise on a single tracked chassis for future developments.
This is what comes when you lose sight of the need to have a sustainable AFV policy. We are now dependent on the commercial market and the choice is very limited, especially given the relatively small size of UK requirements. Most countries have always been in this position, but it is a new experience for the UK, caused by a combination of the end of the Cold War, Labour’s refusal to make purchasing decisions or to even spend on the Army, and the Army’s own indecision about what it actually requires.
CTA remain controversial, but the Army is determined to have it. I suspect any export customers for FRES SV will insist on a normal cannon (Bushmaster, Mauser, etc) with a link/belt feed. For those wishing to get a better understanding of CTA and who would like to see why the turrets are such complex things have a look at:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf
There is little prospect of standardizing on anything. If Warrior CSP is going ahead then this will see Warrior in service until 2035.
I cannot see all the CVR(T) family being replaced with a 40 tonne Ascod 2.
And then there is the IED question. So surely we will see a next generation wheeled MRAP bought in numbers.
Maybe Ascod 2 FrES SV is the right vehicle for Formation Reconnaissance but it’s no reccy vehicle for Afghanistan and probably won’t be elsewhere.
Panther is in a similar weight/size class to Fennek, with similar levels of protection. Would this not be a more sensible choice for “sneaky’beaky” role. In fact, I thought, once upon a time we were told that Panther would replace CVR(T) vehicles.
On the Warrior turret I thought LM’s proposal was to modify the existing turret.
I would dump the idea and remove the turret altogether and fit an RWS. We should content ourselves with Warriors replacing Bulldogs.
Looking at the CTA gun the ammo looks ‘big’. I wonder whether we should accept the 30mm Bushmaster instead. Then at least we would have commonality with the RN’s new DS-30Mk2.
How big is a recce vehicle? Towards the end of WW2 and in Korea, using lessons learnt the hard way, recce vehicles range from small scout cars (Daimler Dingo) to Medium tanks (Cromwell). As such ASCOD doesn’t seem out of place as a recce vehicle. I would question the sense of the use of an IFV as a scout, unless you are using the additional space. Otherwise you are armouring a big chunk of fresh air for no purpose.
The Bushmaster Vs the CT40 – I recall comparing weights and nearly everything about the CT40 weighs twice what the comparable component on the Bushmaster does, so a Bushmaster-armed vehicle would be lighter with the attendant increase in mobility (tactical and strategic). There is also the Supershot project continuing for the Mk44, which would provide a 40mm barrel and projectiles within the same envelope and very similar weights. The APFSDS is a little less powerful than the CT40, the HE is a little lighter, but you can carry more and fire faster. Oh, and because vastly more people use Mk44, you get significantly cheaper parts and ammo.
How big is a Recce vehicle? It’s a good question. We are all talking about FRES SV as being too big because it replaces Scimitar which from the outset was more lightly armoured, mobile, stealthy (because small) and deployable by C130 or underslung a Chinook. If we are taking about armoured reconnaissance then there is a strong argument to simply equip Formation Reconnassance Regiments with Challenger 2 and not bother with FRES Scout. It just looks like the Army are dicovering niches which require capabilities that either already exist in our current inventory or no-one else seems to need.
One of the most intriguing comments so far comes from Fat Man whose opinions seem to be based on considerable close knowledge of the subject. He says that it is possible the SV will become the only major tracked chassis in the period 2020-2040. He puts forward the theory that ordering more FRES will create the chance for us to standardise on a single tracked chassis for future development.
However, despite the weight of Fat Man’s expertise, I find myself more inclined to agree with Jasons. He asserts that there is little chance of standardising on anything and proceeds to give a list of convincing reasons as to why not. The only one I had slight doubts about was:” If Warrior CSP is going ahead then we will see Warrior in service until 2035.” The important question here is of course whether the programme is going ahead. If the Government has sufficient money to replace all the Warrior IFVs in Armoured Infantry regiments with ASCOD2s, then of course the Warrior improvement programme almost certainly will not proceed. However I doubt very much indeed whether they will have that funding in the foreseeable future and so Jasons is probably right on that score too.
I find all the other reasons he gives why standardisation on one chassis is unlikely very convincing: (It being unlikely that all the CVR(T) family will replaced with a 40 tonne ASCOD 2; the IED question necessitating the purchase of next generation wheeled MRAP in numbers; ASCOD 2 FRES SV possibly being the right vehicle for Formation Reconnaissance but not a recce vehicle for Afghanistan and probably not elsewhere either; Panther being a similar weight/size class to Fennek, with similar levels of protection and therefore a more sensible choice for “sneaky’beaky” role).
It would seem to me that the MOD/Army now have the following choices.
A) Proceed with ASCOD2 for Scout Heavy (for Formation Recce), for Fire Support (120 mm and Manoeuvre Support (Bridgelayer etc.) vehicles and as a total replacement IFV for Warrior. Use Warrior chassis as replacement for Bulldogs and (turretless)as ABSV support vehicles. Then find a new Recce Vehicle Light (refurbished Stormer? Fennek? Panther?) in small numbers for the light role (to support 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando Brigade)
B) All the above, apart from replacing Warrior IFVs with ASCOD2s. That would of course leave a smaller number of Warriors available for use as ABSVs.
I think, given the present economic circumstances, that the second option is far more likely.
Has the concept of formation recce been left behind by ‘events’
In the brave new post COIN world is there much less a likelihood of those large armoured maneuvers that the CVR(T) was designed to support?
It is likely we will go down to a much smaller CR2 establishment so does the Scout concept become more detached from the CR2 and form something more independent and self acting. So instead of recce it actually becomes a light armour function where recce is just one of its roles?
The UAV and helicopter, whilst not reducing the need for ground based recce, has also impinged on its raison d’etre
Recce now seems to be more and more about joint fires, sniping and long range precision weapons than schlepping around in red trousers!
At 34 tonnes plus it is hardly strategic or tactically mobile is it, what is going to be able to airlift it, Chinook, bridges, roads, fuel…
They all create problems if viewed as a like for like replacement of CVR(T) and just doesnt make sense in this context so therefore its role must be different.
Could it be they want to go down the medium weight route, hook line and sinker. One set of armoured vehicles for everything, including a replacement for CR2?
Must admit, I am puzzled by what they want to do with this vehicle
“Has the concept of formation recce been left behind by ‘events’
In the brave new post COIN world is there much less a likelihood of those large armoured maneuvers that the CVR(T) was designed to support?”
Have a look at the Leopard 2 forces in Afghanistan. They’re at platoon strength. IFV forces there are operating as platoons as well, with maybe a company’s worth in a large base.
The small mechanised part of the Afghan War is a war on the small unit level – perfect for smallish recce units.
A balanced (some powerful AFVs, few APCs) armoured recce company would be a near-perfect reinforcement for an infantry battalion battlegroup.
Armoured recce formations rather gained a raison d’être in AFghanistan than lose it.
My suggestion was that the FRES SV might be standardised as the major tracked chassis; this certainly does not exclude the probability of additional wheeled chassis or retention of other tracked chassis. The Army still has a separate requirement for an 8×8 armoured vehicle for the role that Piranha V was once intended (money permitting).
I do not disagree with some of the comments below: I think the Army would like to have just one major tracked chassis, but this really depends on the cost of modernising Warrior. If that is cheaper than buying additional SV we will have a mixed fleet, if not watch out for Warriors being scrapped or sold early, or converted into quite different support roles. And the costs are not just the initial capital ones, but also the through life ones. How economic is it really to run on a Warrior into say 2045 when it may be 60 years old? MOD will go for the cheapest option in the present climate.
The point is that FRES SV is not intended to be a recce vehicle like CVR(T). It is a platform that will be networked into a complex web of sensors. Its weight is linked to the need to carry multiple sensors and to ensure survivability against mines, RPGs, heavy cannon fire and some IEDs, but you need to get away from thinking in traditional terms. FRES SV will effectively be a recce tank: the 40 mm gun is capable of taking out older MBTs of the sort you will find in third world countries (T-55/62) and the vehicle, supported by a 120 mm gun version, will be able to seek out, report on and then destroy enemy forces. This is a multi-purpose platform, not just a traditional recce vehicle. I would guess that the older close recce will eventually fall to up-armoured versions of vehicles like Jackal, perhaps in the 8-10 tonne category. FRES SV in its Scout variant (and bear in mind that non-turreted versions are also being designed – see the GD FRES microsite) will be the main AFV in most future formations, particularly in environments unsuitable for Challenger 2, either because of the terrain or because of the difficulties in shipping the larger vehicle. This is where the Rapid Effects moniker comes from.
I think the 8×8 is an evolutionary dead end, its not protected enough against IED’s. You might think that the IED is limited to certain types of operation but the cat is out of the bag, its a strategic weapon that is not going anywhere.
So I can see some sense in using the ASCOD as the backbone of the armoured fleet but not so sure about completely replacing CR2, supplanting yes, replacing ALL of them, no.
That still leaves a need for something smaller though to support air assault/amphib forces and for scenarios where a 40 tonner isnt a strategic or tactical ‘good idea’
As you say, jackal or almost anything else but I think it needs to be sub 10 tonne to at least be liftable by Chinook, even if this is seldom used
Admin said: “That still leaves a need for something smaller though to support air assault/amphib forces and for scenarios where a 40 tonner isn’t a strategic or tactical ‘good idea’
What for exactly ?
You as if Formation Recce regiments as a concept have been left behind ? Specific squadrons of the Household Cavalry (the combined Blues and Royals and Life Guards) are nominated to support 16 AAB and 3 CDO Bde.
The Army has experimented at BATUS with the Scimitar as a FRES SV surrogate with a “medium armour” concept, in other words an auto-cannon armed vehicle in support of infantry that are NOT Warrior based and thus don’t have their own cannons in support.
As Sven points out, just because we are not using heavy armour and AIFV’s in the Stan, others are, with often considerable success.
So as this comments thread seems to be addressing your other posting – what is a Scout for? The answer would be “scouting” – but also as we have discussed in full in various other comments before the British Army uses its Formation Recce units for all of the old cavalry roles: recce by fire, screening, flank protection, in the cold war TA Yeomanry recce regiments with Fox armoured cars were even tasked with rear area security.
But, to answer your question, if you want a armoured (protected) recce capability to support amphib ops, then had it not better be amphibious ? As for 16 Air Assault Brigade, well their best recce asset is the radar and EO/IR equipped Longbow Apache.
The CT40 most certainly cannot take out a T55 from the front, except possibly at extreme close range. It’s best chance would be to try and disable the optics using ABMs
CTA’s performance obviously depends to a large extent on the type of munitions being used; it appears very effective against traditional solid armour of the sort found on older MBTs, but modern tactics are unlikely to see stand-up frontal engagements. This would be the preserve of guided weapons and a 12O mm HV gun. The point of a networked system is to apply firepower in the right quantities from the right direction. The mobility aspect of the Scout comes into this, but I can well understand why there might be concerns about using a ’2 pounder’ gun – shades of 1940-41. Do bear in mind that most potential opponents are likely to be poorly trained and led, and probably have a very limited number of older MBTs. In some ways I do think it a shame that the original 45 mm CTA was not developed with the greater punch this implies, but this may have been the result of the need to fit it within the Warrior turret. And of course FRES Scout will not be working alone, but as part of a team.
something in the 7-10 ton range to airportable, or buy bigger helos 53k, or learning from past mistakes just dip a toe into the french/german project for heavy lift i believe they are looking at the new version on the mil 26 which with new engines can lift 24 tons oo-er!!
Hi Paul, if you read back on some of the air FDR articles I suggested the CH53K as a sensible and coherant option to replace Merlin and Chinook, might have another look at that in light of the European project.
fat Man, do you think the direct fore version of FRES would be able to take a 120mm HV weapon.
I think a 90mm or 105mm is much better suited to this role
Fat Man,
Sorry, I had not understood that your statement that the SV will possibly be the only major tracked chassis in service in 2020 to 2040 did not preclude the retention of other tracked chassis. And of course there is also the whole matter of additional wheeled vehicles. I also accept that I (and others) need to think outside the box a little more. However, the efforts of some Army doctrine and force development experts in recent times concerning the FRES programme have seemingly not been too successful either!
I do feel that the concept of standardisation can be taken too far. I do not think, for example, that it is possible to hit upon one particular chassis that is going to provide a suitable basis for, say, an MBT, a recce vehicle, an MICV, an APC, a SP 155 mm Gun, a load carrier, etc.etc. The reason is quite simply that the designs of chassis tend to be optimised for the roles the vehicles are to carry out. To take a very crude example. If you drive along any main road, you are likely to see cars, taxis, pick-ups, buses, coaches and trucks of all sizes and descriptions. One design of chassis could not possibly cover the whole lot! Or is that too simplistic an argument?
As far as the point about through-life costs being important as well as initial capital costs, yes, that is true. However, the Government concerned about bringing its ANNUAL defence budget under control and that means that year by year spending will be severely constrained. They are therefore, I think, unlikely to release sufficient funding to replace Warrior IFVs with ASCOD2s.
Some people on this and other blogsites are arguing that in WWII and Korea, reconnaissance was taken over by medium tanks such as the Cromwell and by armoured cars. Precisely! Armoured cars. The Dingo remained in service well after the end of the War and I am old enough to remember the Saladin. Something lighter is also needed today, although I’m not sure that the answer is Jackal, for reasons which would take too long to explain here.
One last point. Like you, I have doubts about producing what is really a medium tank to take on MBTs and, as you suggest, that might very well be the subject for some future thread.
Admin
The FRES SV family includes a requirement for a low recoil 120 mm HV gun version and such a weapon has already been tested on the CV 90/120. This would fire NATO standard APFSDS and similar ammunition (though perhaps not HESH/HEP). The introduction of such a system would undermine the case for retaining Challenger 2 with its very different spin stabilized ammunition and would hasten the departure that tank, making CR2 the last heavy tank in UK service. The question really is whether a 40 tonne medium tank will have the protection or ‘presence’ to act as a surrogate MBT. There is no suitable 90 mm or 105 mm weapon in service or under development and the UK will go for 120 mm in order not to be outgunned by T-90/95 and all the other MBTs, so however superficially attractive a reversion to 105 mm appears, forget it. It won’t happen.
I would also consider the question of whether AS-90 might be replaced by a new FRES based SP gun, perhaps using a 155 mm autoloader system like the Swedish Archer, rather than the more conventional turret. You can see the logistic attraction to the Army of having just one tracked chassis, but I suspect budgetary reality will intervene.
The reason I am not overly impressed with the 120mm HV low recoil systems out there is the size of the ammunition and ‘just not quite there’ performance. It makes you think you are in a tank and maybe even act like you are in a tank when in fact, you are not in a tank.
Fire support, yes, surrogate MBT, no
There are many 90mm and 105mm designs out there, mature, a huge variety of natures and small enough to carry a usable load in the SV sized vehicle
Haven’t the Royal Thai Marines a version of ASCOD with a Denel LMT105 turret?
Plus the designs from Cockerill (CMI) and Rheinmetall
Even the GD weapon that is on the Stryker has been trialled on the ASCOD?
Have a look at one of the older posts here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/fdr-%E2%80%93-land-mechanised-infantry-brigade-fighting-vehicles-2/
Mike W
I tend to agree with you. The Army would clearly like a single tracked chassis, but the mere existence of Terrier, Trojan, Titan, etc will preclude this. Nonetheless, I think you will see a sustained attempt to reduce the number of different chassis to as few as possible and this brings us back to the Warrior conundrum. The current plan is to retain Warrior and rebuild it, but as I have already suggested, if this costs as much as a new vehicle the case will be made for a FRES SV/AIFV. Personally i think we will retain Warrior in a partially upgraded state because there will be no money to do more, but if the taps were turned on I would not give Warrior much chance of lasting another 25 years. I agree that compromise multi-purpose chassis are less effective than single purpose ones, but beggars can’t be …
As for the ‘correct recce’ vehicle we have traditionally seen several models:
* The British 4×4 light scout car (Dingo, Ferret) and US armed jeep (with perhaps Jackal as the modern counterpart)
* The heavy 4×4 armoured vehicle (Daimler AC, Fennek, etc)
* The French-German-British 6×6 or 8×8 armoured car (Saladin, Fuchs)
* The German-US half track (Sdkfz families, M-3)
* The Franco-British-Russian light tank (AMX-13, CVR(T), PT-76) – all under 15 tonnes
* The Soviet-US-British medium tank (T-34, Sherman, Cromwell)
I would not like to say which is correct, although clearly FRES SV falls into a cross between the 5th and 6th categories. If you want to report quietly and avoid combat the smaller and lighter vehicles seem more appropriate. If you want to fight for intelligence the heavier, well armed vehicles seem a better bet. All we can say is that FRES SV suggest the Army now has a very different view of how to conduct recce than say 30 or 60 years ago.
Admin
The UK will simply not purchase a non-NATO standard round, regardless of what the Thai Marines may wish to do. No serious Army will now look at less than 120 mm, especially with the Russians mass producing 125 mm weapons. The resulting gun will almost certainly be equipped with an autoloader and will probably be either externally (pedestal) mounted or in a cleft turret, with a tank crew of only three.
I agree with your reservations about trying to use such a vehicle as an ersatz MBT, but I fear this is the route we are going down. If you think about it, the UK after World War II based its tank design on the painful lessons that the Germans inflicted in Normandy – hence:
Tiger = Chieftain
88 mm Pak = Swingfire missile
75 mm Pak = 120 mm Wombat, then Milan missile
What we are now contemplating doing is putting the clock back by abandoning the Centurion-Chieftain-Challenger concept (very much based on the Panther, Tiger, Tiger 2) and going for a modern version of the Sherman Firefly: medium tank, thin armour, big gun. Such AFVs can be very effective, but are also vulnerable – just study Operation GOODWOOD.
This is an fundamental change, but the implications have been largely ignored to date. My hope is that Challenger 2 stays in service long enough for the Army to decide that it needs a 70 tonne successor, but I can see the Treasury suggesting that FRES SV/120 will make an economic replacement. There does not yet seem to be an appreciation of the possible operational impact of this.
Fat Man,
Many thanks for the detailed and illuminating reply. Can you bear one more question? I’ll shut up after that and give you some peace.
You mentioned in a reply to admin the question of whether AS-90 might be replaced by a new FRES based SP gun. I think I read somewhere that the Germans have already put a new 155 mm gun on the ASCOD hull. I seem to remember that the gun was called something like the “Donner” and had previously, for trial purposes, appeared on an MLRS chassis. Would an ASCOD/155mm gun combination possibly be the basis for the FIFS artillery system,which is/was due to replace both the AS90 and the 105 mm Light Gun by 2023?
I know 90mm might not be in widespread service but surely 105mm is a NATO standard?
US MGS for example
This comes down to ‘what is it for’
Slugging it out with T90′s then fair enough, but then it becomes less useful in other roles as the ammunition load becomes so small. A 105mm allows us to tap into the massive manufacturing and logistics base for 105mm
I see where you are coming at but if the are serious about using the FRES DF as a replacement, not supplement, for CR2 then that is very very worrying.
The incidents in Iraq spring to mind, protection on a FRES DF is going to be less than Warrior in the round unless some revolution in protection hoves into view
Mike W
There is no plan that I am aware of to integrate a 155 mm artillery piece with FRES SV; I just wouldn’t rule out the longer term possibility. For now AS-90 rules, but there is a general move towards lighter, more mobile artillery (such as the M-777). Packing AS-90 into an aircraft is infeasible, which means that it hardly matches the rapid effects requirement. I suspect that the defence review will result in a serious reduction to the AS-90 fleet although I have no inside knowledge. However, given the cost and infrastructure required to run them and the move toward medium forces, retaining such a large vehicle would appear questionable. Money permitting, the logical move would be to get rid of both the AS-90 and the 105 mm Light Gun and standardise on M-777, perhaps supplemented by an infantry 120 mm mortar. But I would not rule out an eventual army requirement for a 777 on a tracked chassis, fitted with an autoloader. Ultimately it depends on what kind of enemy you plan to fight. Russia, Iran or North Korea would demand a much more demanding set of equipment than Somalia or Guatemala.
The 777 would make a lot of gunners happy, who have been sulking since the cancellation of LIMAWS(G)
Not sure getting rid of the 105mm and replacing it with a 120mm is a good idea although it seems to be the fashion
Fat Man,
I couldn’t agree more with you its like the 1930′s and early 40′s never happened, with the fiasco called british tank design and funnily enuff it started with NW India and Afganistan when medium tanks were shelved in favour of light tanks for policing duties (COIN).
Then when Hitler started and we decided we needed new tanks they designed a fast, manoeuvrable lighty armoured tank with a good gun (for its day) then wondered why they got shot to pieces, now they are trying again with the same argument light+fast= protection.
Surprisingly the Germans after WW2 went for this argument and developed the Leopard 1, as you know we went down the Chieftain/challenger route, As the Isrealis have had most tank combat since WW2 guess which path they took.
The Germans have revised their ideas and have developed the superlative Leopard 2, but people still have the habit of ignoring hard won combat experience for fancy new trends or cost.
The ASCOD may not be any thing new in design wise but do we need anything fancy, if it works dont fix it, when new tech becomes reliable then introduce it dont try to implement cutting edge tech for the sake of it.
I do agree again if we can introduce a new base tracked platform based on the ASCOD for as many vehicles as possible because they are going to be around for the next fifty years so now is the time.
Just the cost saving by using one type of engine alone is staggering.
Btw a good site for the DONAR SP gun
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/donar.htm
Admin
Current users of the 105 mm AP round in NATO are:
Belgium Leopard 1
Canada Leo 1 (phasing out)
Denmark Leo 1 (reserve)
Germany Leo 1 (reserve)
Greece Leo 1, M-60
Italy Leo 1 (phasing out)
Norway Leo 1 (training only)
Portugal M-48, M-60
Spain M-60
Turkey Leo 1, M-60
This list should tell you something. Most of these countries have already upgraded to Leo 2 and retain Leo 1 or M-60 just in reserve stocks or in service because they are too poor to replace them. The 105 mm round was excellent c.1959, but it has reached the end of its development road and is simply not a viable round if you encounter a top class MBT. There might be a case for a smaller round than 120 mm (the UK tested a 110 mm round in the 1970s), but by abandoning this calibre you are simply saying that you are not a serious player and I suspect the generals would die in a ditch over this one. Let’s just accept that however logical such a move would appear to be it simply is not going to happen unless the US or Germany comes up with a brilliant new 105 mm gun and ammunition to match.
Fatman, does it come down to the emphasis on what we are using it for
Anti armour, then yes, I agree with you, everyone has replaced 105mm with 120mm
but
Direct fire support, like the US MGS, different story
My argument against is that if you put a 120mm its a replacement for CR2, we all know it is anything but but those nice people in the treasury dont. Put a 105mm on it and call it a low collateral infantry support weapon (or something similar) and there remains some clear blue water between the two
I can see the ammunition commonality argument though, ruthless commonality is a common thread in my posts
aren’t our chums t’other side of the now defunct iron curtain about to announce a new MBT with a 155mm main gun they go bigger we go smaller!!!
Wow this thread has meandered all over the place :-)
120mm v. 105mm – well smooth bore 120mm is a NATO standard, but we have ignored it for years with our 120mm rifled tank guns. 127mm is NATO naval standard, but we continue to ignore it with 115mm / 4.5 inch !!
AS90 is recognised as the bees knees by most, but as already stated, you want light weight 155 go back to LIMAWS(G) and yes introduce 120mm mortars to replace the venerable 105mm light gun at the more ‘mobile’ end of the spectrum.
As for 120mm guns on ASCOD, or other vehicles like the CV90120T – it all depends on doctrine and what you want your army to do. I have seen the Fulda Gap mentioned a few times in this thread, and we don’t think that is realistic anymore, so do we think even Gulf War 1 or 2 scenarios are viable anymore ? Are we going to be slugging it out with someone well armed with T90′s who knows how to use them ? If not then a thinner skinned 120mm gunned ‘tank destroyer’ rather than MBT might be “good enough” to meet our requirements ??
I think OIF has shown the 70 tonne MBT is actually a real asset in urban warfare, we can look to the Iraqi incident where a CR2 was hit by multiple RPG’s and a wire guided ATGW without breaching the armour. Add U.S. Army ‘TUSK’ style upgrades, and the heavy MBT is a useful member of the combined arms team in a tense urban battle.
However as I noted in my article on alternative vehicles and structures for FFR’s, I saw a 120mm gunned CV90 variant as an already developed cheaper and potentially multi-role alternative to developing an ATGW version (that being a direct replacement for Striker / Swingfire). If we think our recce doctrine needs an upgrade and analysis of potential threats suggests we can cut back on heavy armour (making it a TA role) then perhaps we field composite medium armour regiments of 40mm CTA, 120mm HV low recoil, and 120mm smooth bore, breach loading mortar variants of the same vehicle.
Finally, I wonder if we had access to the figures, if the capital cost of purchase, and the full through life maintenance costs would fall in favor of replacing Warrior now with the same platform as FRES SV (i.e. the full ASCOD 2 AIFV). Push that further and what additional through life savings might be made be replacing Bulldog with the same platform ?
Of course, all due respect to FatMan, but if I was in they would all be CV90 / Armadillo family, not ASCOD :-)
About 120mm cannons:
The U.S. recently introduced a new 105mm vehicle, Stryker MGS. 105mm is not going extinct.
I doubt that you need anything higher than 57mm to penetrate a typical MBT side armour (except T90 turret side). My personal favourite is 76mm, but that’s a long story.
A 120mm low recoil gun cannot guarantee a frontal penetration against a T-90. Older rounds fail against heavy ERA badly and there’s a reason why German went with the more powerful 120mm L/55 in the Leopard 2A6.
I say that at the very least a 120mm L/44 low recoil gun is not the way to go if you insist on frontal armour penetration AND a long service life.
About 155mm SPH:
The fully automated 15mm gun turret was called AGM Donar. It has supposedly almost the same performance as the very manpower-intensive PzH2000.
About Russian/Ukrainian calibres:
There was some talk (and even some published data) on 135 and 152mm cannons, but neither would have much ammunition onboard. Bigger calibres than 125mm are dead ends. The frontal MBT penetration is actually a niche capability of tanks, and has always been.
The talk about 135mm and the ability to penetrate MBT sides with autocannons in the region of 30-57mm shows that you need to accept an extreme trade-off for this niche capability.
Why not go with a medium calibre and a package of C-KEM hypervelocity missiles instead?
@IanB:
The Germans accepted mediocre Leopard1 protection because HEAT penetration was quite unchecked at that time – even heavy tanks weren’t capable of resisting good shaped charges. Then came “Burlington” and later “Chobham” armour and we got the well-balanced Leo2; mobile like a light tank, greatest protection and gun.
Both Leo1 and Leo2 are even more remarkable or their great durability, easy maintenance and quick repair; some very important hidden values that the Soviet tanks lack.
@FatMan: I say that a 6×6 for very distant ground recce (~16 t, 1000+ km road range) and a medium tank for recce with an emphasis on combat (~40-50 t) are the correct choices nowadays. My idea has a kind of doctrine underpinning (looong story), and that’s how one should decide on this: First you need to know what your ground recce shall do, and how. Then you understand your needs and budget, write the requirements and get the hardware ASAP.
- – - – -
Finally, one reminder: Tanks should not primarily fight tanks. That’s hammer on hammer. Stupid, yet sometimes unavoidable.
The strength of AFVs lies in their relatively free movement on accessible battlefields. AFVs can overrun enemies who aren’t ready for combat (such as combat (service) support troops), for example. AFVs are the offensive element in open lowlands warfare (swamps excluded). Infantry (as if we had enough of it) cannot fight on open terrain, and offensive employment of infantry against competent opposition is typically extremely risky.
The late Cold War MBT optimization for (frontal!) tank-on-tank combat was an exaggeration; an ill-advised focus on a niche.
@Fat Man
What about my favourite failed tank gun, the 75mm ARES. Apparently the KE ammo was on a par with 105mm NATO for armour penetration. On FRES DF/SF it would further distance itself from 120mm MBT weapons in the minds of the bean-counters . . .
Dave, would the 75mm ARES be useful for anything else though
Plus, its not in production, 120mm, 105mm and 90mm are
“Dave, would the 75mm ARES be useful for anything else though
Plus, its not in production, 120mm, 105mm and 90mm are”
Yes!
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html
In fact, such a calibre could be much more versatile than a 120 mm cannon.
76 mm is a NATO standard calibre for naval L/62 guns. That cartridge (and the associated fuses) could be used for an automatic 76 mm tank cannon. I think of a custom tank turret design, not a simple transfer of the naval mount (60′s design) onto a tank as in the OTOMATIC SPAAG.
Nice article Sven, a good argument for a 76mm weapon and it could even use the STRALES guided system. Wasn’t there A Marder prototype fitted with a Bofors 57mm
Your point about overpressure when working in conjunction with dismounted infantry is especially valid. This will be an even bigger problem with a 120mm.
However, I was thinking of reducing the need for a new development, even if taking a set of existing components, to keep the cost down.
Although there is only one off the shelf 90mm turret from CMI there are quite a few for the 105mm, the CMI CTCV. Denel LMT105 and Oto Melara HITFACT sprint to mind.
The Denel turret has even been fitted to the ASCOD, all would be a low risk option and again, not convinced by having a 120mm in a light fighting vehicle and calling it a tank!
As commenters have said below, British armoured vehicle has been about protection, as a result of our unpleasant experience in Normandy.
Why unlearn those lessons?
The RMA nonsense of replacing protection with sensors has pretty much been debunked so this would see a retrograde step, however cheap it might appear
The GD Stryker (LAV/Piranha III) Mounted Gun System has been mentioned: the point is that this is not an anti-tank weapon and does not have such a role. It is an infantry support gun for taking on buildings and field fortifications, with a secondary role against light vehicles. As deployed it does not normally carry an HV AP projectile. The Canadian Army cancelled their order in favour of acquiring Leopard 2 after their Afghan experience, while I understand it has not exactly been a stunning success in US use, since the gun is really too powerful for the chassis and the vehicle is not stable if the weapon is fired at off-centre.
I am not in favour of heavily armed light vehicles, since I remember the fiasco over the Vietnam-era air-portable Sheridan with its 152 mm piece and the Shillelagh missile. In a way it seems to me that the UK is trying to produce something a bit like this with the 120 mm Direct Fire version of FRES SV. Trying to get something powerful on a reduced budget is generally a false economy.
These details of MGS are from the GDLS website
ARMAMENT
105mm Main Gun
Commander’s Weapon (.50 Cal)
7.62mm Coax Machine Gun
MOBILITY
Top Speed – 60 mph
50m Dash – 9 sec.
Wheel Clearance – 21 in.
Vertical Climb – 23 in.
Gap Crossing – 78 in.
Range – 330 miles (Cbt Ops)
SURVIVABILITY
High Hard Steel Structure
Protection : 14.5mm
RPG w/add on armor
Spall Liner
Smoke Grenade Launchers
C2
SINCGARS & FBCB2
EPLRS
GPS
VIS/VIC
DEPLOYABILITY
C-130 – 1 ea.
C-17 – 3 ea.
C-5 – 4 ea.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Configuration: Combat (in.) Shipping (in.)
• Height 130.44 105.67
• Width 116.34 104.47
• Length 300.53 300.53
Direct Fire Support against hardened targets (walls, bunkers, buildings)
CREW: 3
Automatic Ammunition Handling System 18 x 105mm Main Gun Rounds
- 6 Rnds per minute
AMMUNITION TYPES:
HEP (High Explosive Plastic)
HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank)
KE (Kinetic Energy)
Cannister (in development
I dont see the purpose of the 120mm gun.
All its proponants have offered so far (I think) is front kills on tanks.
That doesnt really wash I’m afraid.
FRES is supposed to be a sensorific platform that can see its targets far out, so a frontal assault just doesnt need to happen, it should always be engaging enemy targets in the side, for which even a burst from a 40mm autocannon should be sufficient.
120mm only makes sense with lots of your tanks engaging lots of there tanks head on.
Hellfire/Brimstone eliminates “lots of their tanks” and FRES’s sensor fit should eliminate “head on”
Could a “Direct Fire” FRES be mounted with a 105mm light gun?
And a Fire Support FRES be mounted with a 120mm mortar?
Every time I have seen a picture or a video of the MGS firing it looks like it is going to keel over. I think the gun they used were surplus M1A1 105mm barrels so they had to invent a very complex mount, not of the logic in that one either.
That said, would it fare better on a heavier chassis, something like, I dunno, an ASCOD !
I think we are all in agreement, using a large calibre weapon 90/105/120mm would provide a very useful capability for infantry support, destroying armoured vehicles like older MBT’s or IFV’s and even at a push in the rapid deployment scenario of FRES against modern MBT’s. I know our transport infrastructure doesnt allow rapid anything, not least with 40 ton armoured vehicles and you might argue Javelin would be better at this anyway but its a useful capability to have.
The argument then comes to off the shelf v custom development
So the winner is an off the shelf because of obvious budget issues
What should it be then depends on what you want it to do, if you see it as being a replacement for CR2 in the long term then I suppose a 120mm makes sense. If you want something to compliment CR2 in medium weight formations and to add some serious punch to the infantry in operations like for example Afghanistan then I think the argument becomes stronger in favour of 90 or 105mm.
Afghanistan is a good example, the Canadians and others have been making good use of their Leo’s but would something like the FRES DF variant, the MGS or even something like Argentinian TAM make more sense given the road/bridge infrastructure and lessened anti armour threat?
The MGS was supposed to use old M1A1 barrels, but that was jsut a marketing claim for sell the program to congress. In fact they did afaik order new 105mm barrels (guns) from a U.S company.
The autoloader of the MGS is also said to be crap. It failed to load way too often. Maybe they kind of fixed that problem, but if not; based on what I’ve heard about the early MGS it was a new Chauchat, unable to empty its ammo racks without a stoppage.
@DominicJ:
“FRES is supposed to be a sensorific platform that can see its targets far out, so a frontal assault just doesnt need to happen(…)”
Actually, it’s supposed to be a “scout” = to move forward in order to run into trouble in the expectation that you better send a few scouts into trouble than a whole battalion.
The problem is likely that the average scout vehicle gets killed by hits on its thin side armour.
The 120mm version would (for example) be needed if the Scout battalion’s main force has run into troubles that prevent it from accomplishing its mission. Those troubles might be heavily armoured and require a powerful gun.
A 120mm does not guarantee kills and it has partial substitutes (Eurospike, C-KEM as examples for head-on kills / medium guns, powerful autocannons and many ATGMs for kills from the side), but some powerful armament is necessary.
related:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/08/about-armored-reconnaissance-and.html
The need for a tank-killing capability in armoured recce was a lesson learned from mid/late WW2. The Germans understood & took tanks for the job (M47/M48/Leo1), the French understood & remembered (75-105mm guns on wheeled AFV, mostly 6×6), the British understood and still didn’t get it right (76mm medium velocity gun and Swingfire weren’t enough).
What do people reckon of Sven’s advocacy of 75/76mm gun as a possibility for this role?
It sounds compelling, and I am sure there are reasons against, just curious to hear the arguments so i would better understand………….?
Is it even a valid question to ask if there is no chance and no-interest in looking at this option, and why would this be so?
Sven makes a compelling argument, but here is my rather shabby counter
How Much?
There are many ideas from the last 30-40 years that foundered on the technology of the day or for political/industrial reasons and in some instances they can live again.
Sometime though, the costs simply outweigh the benefits.
We can go out and buy a 90mm/105///120mm turret today if we need one
How long do you think we have been developing the CTA 40mm, go back into my long FRES Spot the Difference article to see
Sven
The thinking behind the FRES program was that it didnt need armour because it would see and destroy the enemy with prescision fire before the enemy was aware of it.
I dont agree with it, but that was the reasoning.
Under that reasoning, a 120mm gun isnt required, because a burst of 40mm or a guided missile to the flank or rear will disable the enemy.
Arming the scout so that it can overcome targets the battalion it is scouting for cant just seems odd to me.
If you MBT cant destroy a target, your scout sure as hell shouldnt be able to.
I can see the sense in a rapid firing 75 or 76mm cannon but only in the absence of most other calibers from .50 cal upwards. And even then you have to consider the amount of ammunition that can be carried. We are not in that position.
The 40mm CTA as been chosen, presumably, because it is believed that it has sufficient AP to disable or impede most armoured vehicles below MBT otherwise I can’t see the point of it.
Above that a 120mm Challenger 2 is required. Ok it’s big and heavy and more difficult to deploy but then a 40 tonne scout is pretty heavy too.
So instead of maybe (hypothetically) but not in between.
Yet another correspondent (Jasons)asserts the need to retain Challenger2 and I wholeheartedly concur.
What’s in a name? Well, quite a lot actually. Admin has earlier pointed out how we all know that the ASCOD Fire Support vehicle, especially if equipped with a 120 mm gun and called a TANK, would almost certainly be regarded by those in the Treasury (and holding the purse strings) as a replacememt for Challenger2 (even though we know that it’s not.)
Perhaps, if the British Army wishes to keep Chally, it should be made de rigueur not to refer to the Scout Fire Support vehicle as a Light TANK. It has already been referred to as such by the press. There was an article in the “Sunday Times” a few years ago now, talking about how Britain’s next TANK would be in the 30 to 40 tonnes range and have a German gun mounted on a Swedish vehicle (when the choice seemed likely to be CV90, that is).
So let there be an end to referring to it as a LIGHT TANK. Call it what you will but not that! And let’s keep as many of the 70 tonne monsters in service as possible. Light “tanks” were decimated in WWII! Mind you, I still see the need for a Scout Fire Support vehicle as well (Don’t ask me what calibre gun!)
So to summarize, 120mmHV low recoil not quite good enough to take out MBT head on , plus any “fire support” vehicle with such a gun is liable to labelled as a medium tank and used WRONGLY as a replacement for CR2 ??
So, why not use BAe AMOS 120mm smooth bore breaching loading mortar instead – come on boys, aren’t you surprised it’s taken me this long to post this !!! :-)
Direct fire out to 1.2 to 1.5KM, indirect Anti-armour out to 7km plus (with IR guided top attack rounds which are already available) or direct fire Anti-tank firing laser guided missiles (such as LAHAT) – I have said it all before in other posts. It’s all we need for a “fire support” version of FRES !!
I like it, but….
Has it got the velocity/low flight time, accuracy and ammunition to destroy a fast moving armoured vehicle, say another AIFV or Light Tank (sorry) at range.
The mortar has a lot going for it, wide range of natures (guided capability), cheapish, hefty payload, low blast and its sexy but I fear it falls down on the question above.
How about both versions?
“Above that a 120mm Challenger 2 is required.”
The CR2 is basically a MBT of the chobham generation dominant design (Leo2, Leclerq, M1A2, CR1, CR2) with some gadgets added (especially thermals).
Its protection is maximised up front and rather disappointing elsewhere. That recipe is not the way to go in the future.
You may see the need for a MBT, but a good choice would either follow the Merkava IV concept, the Japanese Type 10 (TK-X, 44 mt) or at the very least afurther developed version of the Vickers Mk 7 idea.
The CR2 may be acceptable as an interim solution because it’s already in the inventory, but it’s too heavy, too few (production restarting production would be “difficult”) and has an outdated (actually never been good) armour distribution.
Quite the same applies to Leo2 as well, of course.
@Admin:
The budget problem is severe, but the way to go is to replace all decisionmakers in the procurement process. No exceptions.
No matter what hardware you want to buy; everything is overpriced if your procurement bureaucary doubles the price.
I have a ten year old book in which the author (leading German tank expert) mentioned that NATO is unlikely to develop a new MBT anytime soon because that would cost € 600 million.
Compare this to the excessive waste of money in U.S. and UK AFV development projects and you’ll see that saving efforts should not care much about tank guns.
“Jed July 5, 2010
So to summarize, 120mmHV low recoil not quite good enough to take out MBT head on(…)”
It’s apparently good enough for all but few non-friendly MBTs of today (basically only China, India and Russia have several hundred very well protected MBTs each), but it is unlikely to stay so for long if other nations keep developing forms of protection against such APFSDS.
I’m sorry for the third post in a row (and their length), but I’d like to intervene about AMOS.
AMOS is a favourite of many, but it’s simply overengineered, exaggerated, heavy and way too expensive. The turret alone costs several millions.
NEMO is lighter, but not cheap either. BAe AMS isn’t cheap as well.
The only really cost-efficient SP mortar systems use turntable mortars, including the really impressive CARDOM.
The old STRIX IR-guided round has a very small footprint (you need to aim very close to the expected target position to enable a hit). Munitions such as STRIX are furthermore quite in serious trouble against modern active protection system upgrades. You shouldn’t count on it being an important part of your AT ability if you think of a peer vs. peer conflict.
Sven ref AMOS – I actually meant BAe AMS II – honest !!
Ref Strix – upadate it with GPS seems a reasonable step ?
Do potential threat vehicles have widely fitted active sensors – radar or lidar ? I don’t think so, yet…… But how long tol they are very wide spread and effective ? It’s just another chapter of weapon versus countermeasures…..
What’s yr basis for statements ref CR2 armour distribution and why do u believe Merkeva is better ?
Admin- ref mortars hitting fast moving armoured target – I refer you to my constant references to laser guided missiles such as LAHAT fired from the mortar tube
Just thought I would share this with all the talk about 120mm guns and Chally’s – the Jordanian Falcon project to fit an unmanned, autoloader equipped “turret” to their Challengers – if we had the cash I would have a Chobham version of this fitted to ours, before creating the TA heavy armoured regiments :-)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm
if i remember my studies correctly, the jordanian falcon turret had one major flaw – insanely complex vision periscope systems from the rotating turret to the non-rotating crew, that were needed to provide a back-up to the electronic sensors
C. I am no expert on yhe Falcon, but studying the ltetature available including the phots this “low profile turret” appears to have a standard turret basket arrangemet – it’s not a giant remote weapons station. Therefore I suspect that the crew rotate or sllew with the turret even though they are sat low down in yhe hull, and thus their direct view optics / periscopes move with the and should be fairly conventional. Admittedly sat low down either side of the gun, they are going to be reliant on their electo-optics for all round vision and situational awareness BUT how good a view do u get from a CR2′s commanders or gunners cupola periscopes ????
had a quick try to confirm whether the Falcon turret crew rotate or not and can’t so will leave it there, although i do think any armoured vehicle crew would want vision periscopes no matter how bad the view
A cursory search of images of the Falcon turret shows that the hatches and surrounding periscopes rotate with the central turret spine that mounts the weapon and auto loader. There is a commander’s panoramic sight centrally mounted above the gun.
The CR2 has armoured protection equal to any other MBT with one exception, the Merkava 4 with Trophy and it equals this platform in most areas and excees in top attack protection. It has been stated that current MBTs were designed for head on engagements against othe MBTs. That is correct as no MBT can really survive a current generation 120mm APFSDS in the side or rear but they can most other threats. The biggest factor MBTs bring to the curretn battlefield is pressence and fear. An insurget see a light armoured vehicle and believes he has a chance. He sees an MBT and most of the time will decide to be somewhere else.
The ASCOD should be an ideal platform for a familily of vehicles though O do not see the need for a MGS variant. Those we need are;
Scout – 40mm
Mortar – 120mm
AT/Overwatch – ATGW
Command – 7.62mm RWS
Engineer – 7.62mm RWS
APC – 7.62 or 12.7mm RWS
Ambulance – Pintle 7.62mm
Logistics – Pintle 7.62mm
I would add ICV with a similar turret to the scout, if only to standardise the AFV fleet together with Signals/ECM and ISTAR variants with the former providing network hubs and the latter equipped for launching and controling medium UAVs and also controling and providing data to larger UAVs and UCAVs
This would leave the Army with a much more common fleet then at present allow much reduced support costs.
The second part would be a rationalisation of the current wheeled fleet especially the multitude of Mine Protected vehicles. A number must be retained in storage but what types needs to be sorted out.
Vehicles like the Jackel and it varians need to be retained and used to equip both the Army’s airbourne units and RMs
THe Panther is a bit of a strange case. It could be used to carry out the duties of the “Snatch” but is it any better protected. I would remove the RWS and use it as a glorified Landrover in the comms and utility role keeping it well away from trouble or even though it is new in service actually remove it unless it survivability can be greatly increased
Forgive my ignorance please but I have a couple of questions that may be pertinent to this thread, as well as various others. Are all/any of these proposed vehicles designed (rather than uparmoured later) with surviving IED and EFP strikes in mind? Any armoured vehicle design (including heavies?) surely must have a v-shaped hull and be designed around cabin survivability from below, just as much as coping with other threats. Isn’t this the only way to realise mobility in asymmetric environments?