Any discussion on vehicle coherence should logically be proceeded by the finalisation of doctrine and their resultant structures; do we go down the medium weight path as envisaged by FRES, are square armoured regiments supported by armoured infantry still relevant, are the multi equipment brigades the way forward or do we simply have lots of light infantry supported by a range of vehicles depending on the operational scenario?
The Army still seems to be enamoured with the medium weight concept with the recent announcements on the ASCOD FRES SV vehicles. If it is the intention to reduce both the heavy formations and lighter formations with a greater number of medium weight ones then impact on logistics is uncertain, what you take in one hand is given to the other. Operations in Afghanistan have shown that whilst dismounted operations against this type of enemy uses the same light infantry and small unit tactics that have evolved over centuries their means of transport is considerably weightier, for example Mastiff.
Other factors that might inform our vehicle choices is the knowledge that the current situation is unsustainable and we have to strive for standardisation, or to use the Think Defence term, Ruthless Commonality. As I have said before, this is about much more than neatness, we have to save money on driver training, spares, maintenance and integration by moving to as few types of vehicles as possible. I think I may be preaching to the converted here though!
The current drive must be to sustain what is in Afghanistan and when this operation ceases the Army will enter a period of recovery, during which time we must consider what to do with the hundreds of vehicles (and other equipment) purchased under UOR. Do we recognise that in the long term much of this equipment will not be suitable, or will the Army be told to keep it?
What about supporting our designers and manufacturers; BAe, Supacat, Creation, MultiDrive, JCB, Oviks, TMV, QinetiQ and Universal Engineering for example?
So many questions, none of which I am going to even attempt answer!
Instead, these are just some out aloud thoughts!
The tank is not dead and will not be in the future either so lets all stop calling them cold war relics, as ever though, they must evolve both in capability and organisational terms. I like the idea of organising tanks into smaller, more independent units, even down to independent armoured squadrons that have the full range of support equipment including recovery, combat engineering and recce. These squadrons could deploy in singles to support operations similar to Afghanistan or combine to create a larger armoured brigade. I think the days of having 2 armoured brigades are numbered. Their 120mm main guns are mainly for destroying other tanks so to improve utility in operations where they are being used to overmatch non armoured enemy forces we should be looking at creating an equivalent to the Russian BMP-T, armed with the 40mm CTA cannon and a range of missile armament, either Hellfire, CRV7-PG or the Lightweight Modular Missile for example. Maybe even a return of the 76mm, 90mm or 105mm main weapon is something we might consider for these lighter Challenger variants.
Whatever we do in the medium weight sphere, we still need to keep the Challenger 2, even in its main anti tank role but at a smaller scale.
Whatever the relative merits of CV90 or ASCOD I think we can all agree they are very similar and as far as the FRES concept goes it makes a lot of sense, only if it is followed through. In the medium to long term FRES SV should replace Warrior, Warrior variants and CVR(T). All the planned variants including the direct fire version should be introduced, in quantity.
Replacing AS90 completely with a combination of truck mounted modular 155mm cannon and GMLRS reduces the vehicle count even further.
Vikings should be retained with the RM and Warthogs, the Army.
I still think there is a gap for a small armoured vehicle, sub 10 tonnes so it can be lifted by a Chinook and more than one carried in an A400. Keeping to this weight also means they can be carried easily on railway flatbeds and trucks for extended reach. FRES SV is not strategically mobile because it will need a low loader, C17 or ship to deploy and on the battlefield can only move under its own power.
How about a derivative of Viking, leave off the rear module and replace the cab with a centreline protected capsule, mast mounted sensor package and remote weapon station carrying an ATK 30mm cannon or GMG/HMG?. It would be light enough to be airlifted, air dropped, amphibious and easily transported inter theatre.
Any takers?
The Terrier sticks out because it is only just entering service and will not have commonality with anything else. In an ideal world we would use ASCOD as a base for these types of vehicles but replacing it now would not be sensible so we should just accept it.
The IED is not going to go away any time soon so any new vehicles must take this into account. This reality means we have to accept that the Land Rover, Pinzgauer, Jackal and Panther should be withdrawn.
In the protected mobility and light logistics role we should go to a two tier fleet.
The Ocelot 4×4 PPV would replace the Land Rover and its many derivatives including WMIK, Snatch, GS and FFR. The modular nature of the payload bay makes this an attractive and versatile design. In non combat roles we should make more use of ‘white fleet’ vehicles like a Toyota pickup for example.
The Ranger would be a natural replacement for RB44, Pinzgauer (load carrier), Mastiff, Fuchs, Ridgeback, Panther, Wolfhound, Vector, Jackal, Coyote and Husky. Its approach to modular payloads is also attractive.
Both these can use the new common electronic vehicle architecture and have a growth path to the insertion of hybrid propulsion technologies.
The only fly in the ointment for Ranger and Ocelot is of road mobility, they don’t seem as agile in the rough stuff as Pinzgauer and Supacat families so perhaps there is a niche for a vehicle that has high mobility, relatively low weight a high degree of blast protection. This niche might be filled by an improved Jackal or even TMV 6×6.
With this, we couple replace the majority of the non logistics fleet with a small number of vehicle types, reaping significant benefits in training, logistics and ultimately, cost.
For the large logistics behicles we should simply keep on going with the MAN Support Vehicles except to convert the UBRE’s to containerised fuel distribution systems. The Royal Engineers Unipower 8×8’s should also be replaced with a containerised/flatrack bridging system. The C Vehicle PFI should be redrafted to that instead of Iveco Trakker trucks we
The Close Support Tanker is an interesting choice and is one of the most mobile vehicles we have but unless we are going to go for an articulated DROPS replacement then we might consider replacing the tankers with a tank container based system. Capacity might be lower which means more vehicles for a given delivery volume but this might be compensated for in other areas.
The Leyland/Foden DROPS replacement programme could simply use the existing EPLS system, bringing it into the main equipment programme and using SX rather than HX chassis.
An alternative to the traditional articulated truck might be an articulated dump truck type design that could combine a wide range of containerised/flatrack payloads with extreme off road mobility. The main problem with this type is the skid steering system and lack of on road legality in many countries, the Multidrive system might be a concept worthy of consideration.
By taking a holistic view of the entire vehicle fleet with a view to long term consolidation we can exploit design synergies and create a paradigm shift in vehicle provision.
No problems with most of the theory of your post, but I just don’t like the Ocelot or the Ranger. Ocelot’s suspension, from what we can see in released videos, is, well, crap. The SV400 looks to be a better ride and adjustable air suspension will always be better when loads are variable.
The Ranger just looks bad from a mobility point of view. Adding extra axles at the rear does not make for good performance off road and tire scrub will be horrendous.
No problem with a logistics version of warthog either – just don’t expect it to be amphibious once you remove the rear module!
So, like the ideas but not the proposed vehicles.
Any alternatives Pete?
The post is just an idea, put out there to generate discussion I suppose
Unfortunately, the only alternative to Ocelot is the Supacat SV400 and if I sing the praises of Supacat vehicles AGAIN, people will start to think I’m on their payroll. . .
That said, I do think that the SUpoacat running gear is better than the Ocelots. As for an alternative to the Ranger, I don’t know. For good off road performance an 8×8 or 6×6 vehicle should have it’s wheels reasonably evenly spaced. This puts the middle wheels right under the passenger compartment which is exactly where you don’t want them if a big IED goes off under your vehicle. If, however, the threat is from mines or small IED’s that will only blow a wheel off, then you want equally spaced wheels and an H-drive or similar transmission that will allow you to get home even if your vehicle has lost a wheel or two. In such cases wheels are better than tracks. Lot’s of former Saladin and Saracen crews will testify to the wisdom of this option. As usual there are compromises to be made. A logistics vehcile may not need the off road performance of an AFV so less than ideal wheel arrangements are acceptable. So do you want an acceptable truck based on a mediocre AFV or a decent AFV that’s over engineered (and no doubt over priced) for a truck.
You pays yer money and takes yer choice . . .
I’m still skeptical about the LPPV concept. A mini MRAP that so small that it lacks real utility. There is precious little room inside either vehicle and they both look to have a very high centre of gravity.
Personally, I would stick with Jackal, Panther, Viking in the sub 10 tonnes class.
The Ranger has a similar problem in that the standard 6 x 6 seems only to have seating for six in the rear compartment.
The RG35 is in the same weight/protection class. Does anyone have any thoughts about the design? (especially the position of the driver!)
I would like Supacat to develop a 6 x 6 with v shaped hull in APC and flatbed.
I sincerly hope that if teh ASCOD RV is purchased the MoD accepts that this is the platform for all its medium requirements and does not try to go down the route of tendering of each following catagory. Yes tender for the equipmetn mounted if neccessary and even the integrating leader but huse their common sence.
I agree that the MAN series should be standardised as a matter of urgency. German manufacturers are renown for the after sales service even offering a warranty on their AFVs to all customers.
does the warthog, or the viking, work as ‘useful’ vehicle in theatre without its back-end?
I rather suspect that neither the Viking nor the Warthog can actually steer at all without the two cabs joined with the powered articulation.
It begs the question, what is this mini vehicle supposed to do? With a GMG/HMG then it’s not much different to a Jackal. With a 30mm Mk44 it has something for killing light AFVs (which there is not much call for, at least at the moment, and other platforms would be better at the job). With an M230 it has a slightly longer range GMG. Basically, though, we are talking about something like a Weisel, so ATGW, 120mm mortars, SAM and various autocannon are possible.
It still doesn’t answer why you would want it.
My thinking was based on the loss of a lightweight, high mobility, low ground pressure, well armed and protected vehicle like Scimitar.
When we go to FRES we lose a vehicle that
1. Can be air lifted by Chinook
2. Has an extreme low ground pressure which is vital for all terrain mobility
3. Has all round protection and NBC protection
4. Has a good sensor fit
5. Has a hard hitting weapon
6. Can be airdropped and fit multiples in a C130/A400
Now you might think that Jackal is a reasonable replacement for Scimitar in the close recce role but are we being blinkered by Afghanistan. Not sure how Jackal would perform in boggy or snowy conditions, crap I suspect.
CVR(T) has superb tactical mobility but just as important, if not more important, is its strategic mobility. FRES will have some tactical mobility but ZERO strategic mobility, C17, low loader, non self deployable etc
So I looked at what we had and Viking seemed a sensible base. Band tracks have been demonstrated on non articulated tracked vehicles like CV90 so as long as we could modify the transmission for skid steering then it would be ideal. Replace the body with a tandem crew pod and weapon of your choice and you have a light vehicle that can throw a decent punch whilst retaining serious all terrain tactical mobility and strategic mobility that FRES simply will not have
Its a bit hairbrained I know but bugger it, I like the idea!
OK, so we’ve lost Scimitar without a like-for-like replacement. But what does it do?
Scimitar has a hard-hitting weapon, but to hit what? RARDEN is great vs. light AFVs but not so good vs. structures etc. A more modern 30x173mm weapon would provide airbursting projectiles which would be more effective at suppression, but to what end?
Is this vehicle to be a lightweight weapons platform for strategically mobile forces (light infantry, paras and the RM)? In this instance a Mk44 would be pretty good, as would a GMG or M230, although the Mk44 would be better vs. light AFVs.
Or is it a light scout vehicle for less clement climes? Again, airbursting autocannon would be good to break contact or engage ATGW screens.
If you look at what CVR(T) has been used for over the years it has a wide variety of roles outside of the recce area.
If we are going to a strategic raiding model we need to seriously think about how we will actually get to where we want to raid
This is an interesting discussion, might promote it to a separate post
hmmm are’t BAe touting a lightweight remote weapon station weighs 850kg and can take up to 25mm could be a usuful bit of kit, and also don’t forget there is a viking mk 2 v-shaped hull bigger engine, knee jerk to withdrawl of viking from “ganners” pitched it against warthog but were issued a set of prongs from the MOD ( set of prongs=2 finger salute).
@ Admin – “If we are going to a strategic raiding model we need to seriously think about how we will actually get to where we want to raid. This is an interesting discussion, might promote it to a separate post.”
Agreed, and a separate post looking at the future of high-mobility protected vehicles such as the Warthog would be very interesting.
What I don’t get is why we wouldn’t just stick with the Warthog as it is, it isn’t so heavy that it loses strategic mobility, especially if the rumoured move to a pure A400/C17 force is true.
I believe you could get at least one in an A400, and probably one and a half, and I am pretty sure they can be transported underslung by chinooks if broken in half.
On a separate note relating to the most recent post – What are the advantages of Warthog over Viking Mk2?
And could we not standardise on one version, perhaps hiving off the existing viking fleet for peace-keeping operations.
Warthog Vs Viking 2? Something like 11t vs 8.5t.
As an armoured vehicle it lacks a bit by being quite large therefore lots of volume to protect.
But what do you want it to do?
from the point of view of light forces; be movable by chinook, because that is deemed importanr from my reading thus far……..?
Whilst I have always liked the CVR(T) family it has always had shortcommings. The Rarden cannon though very accurate is slow firing and the weapon is nbot stabalised. Until recently its night vision was very poor and even with TI it can never be said to be in the top class. Fitting the CVR(T) with “Slat” armour to protect it from RPGs had pushed the suspension to the max. It ia also very very cramped inside as I know from experience. The ability to airdrop the CVR(T) is a capability only used on exercises and it off little real use today. Also the need to transport a REcce platform under a Helicopter is not a essential capability and if I had to choose between protection and air mobility I would always go for the former.
In recent conflicts we have used the CVR(T)s more as light tanks than the stealthy recce platforms they are and with the loss of the Striker the Recce Regiemnts no longer have an overwatch platform.
The ASCOD RV with the stabalised 40mm CTA has greatly improved forpower and with it fused ammunition far more flexible.
Whether Infantry and Armoured units retain their close recce platoons is another question. In future, Battelgroups may had detachments from Recconnaisance Regiments attached instead of organic assets or may have to rely on platforms such as the Jackal or Panther.