You know that £500 million that we are paying General Dynamics to create 7 FRES SV demonstrators, the same FRES SV that is based on a 20 year old design where all of the variants are already in service with Spain and Austria?
Yes, that one that is ‘British to its Bootstraps’
Here is a photograph of the the first test vehicle, the pithily titled PT3 Mule, with the EDU turret fitted.
Does that chassis look a bit, well, used?
This from General Dynamics
The mule base unit, known as PT3, is based on a mature ASCOD vehicle already in service with the Austrian Army. The 1.7 metre race ring, specifically designed by General Dynamics UK for Scout, was integrated onto the vehicle by General Dynamics European Land Systems at its Simmering facility in Austria. The vehicle was then transported to General Dynamics UK’s Pershore facility in Worcestershire, UK, to undergo a series of tests and prepare it to accept the EDU turret. It was then transferred to Lockheed Martin UK’s facility in Ampthill, Bedfordshire last week for the integration of the turret.
In parallel, the first EDU turret was being built at Rheinmetall Landsysteme in Gersthofen, Germany. Rheinmetall Landsysteme designs, develops and manufactures the Scout SV Turret Structure for turret design authority Lockheed Martin UK. Following a successful first build of the turret, the mandated CT40 Cased Telescoped Cannon System was integrated into it and fired for the first time in May, five months ahead of schedule. It was also subsequently transported to Ampthill where it has been undergoing extensive testing and preparation for integration with the PT3 mule base unit.
So have I read that correctly, for £500 million, we can’t even have a new build?
What do you think the best tabloid headline would be for this?
Full story here
A Banana Republic (without even the bananas).
i thought the scout version was going to be a roadwheel shorter hence the high “development” cost!!! ‘kin chancers
Hi paul g,
Out of memory: BAE made CV one wheel shorter (to be a scout)
Mobility trials followed
ASCOD did not do too well; they added one wheel to rectify that
Just my quick recollection…
I am off to watch some YouTube videos of CV90.
@ACC i knew about the BAe roadwheel but didn’t know about the addition by ascod, next it’ll be unicorn tears in the windscreen washer bottle FFS
So there should be plenty of space in the back. Will it transport a RECCE team? I hope it will. A mast-mounted sensor could have been a nice fit, but since it is not planned, i guess infantry is the only use for all that precious space.
A little bird has told me that not all of this money is staying with GE, a slice is coming off the top for next gen Armour development.
It doesn’t look ‘that’ used. The report notes it was extensively tested in the UK prior to integration; presumably this also means track tested in the dust and dirt.
It makes sense to base the demonstrators on already fabricated chassis because it means the integration trials can be carried out that much sooner in the programme, which cuts down the risks considerably.
If they ran into any sort of problem with integration that meant they had to make changes to the chassis, and the chassis had been built in the UK to-order from a new manufacturing plant, think of all the costs involved in changing all that capital equipment.
“A little bird has told me that not all of this money is staying with GE, a slice is coming off the top for next gen Armour development.”
I definitely hope you are right!
Modern armor, modern turret, modern gun, modern engine, modern transmission, modern electronics architecture, fire on the move, hull ASCOD indeed.
at the risk of losing all my “armour” cred was with the two hoofing boxes at the rear and how many guys will be running into them when getting out/in of the bloody thing.
@ Paul g – I think they’re fuel tanks; seen similar on other APC’s like the M113. If not maybe equipment boxes?
The ASCOD Scout makes me think of the U.S. M3 Bradley, whose role is to destroy the enemy forces they encounter. Decreased number of crew in the combat compartment allowed to carry more ammunition. Ammunition load virtually doubled, comparing with the M2 IFV Bradley.
Two scouts are located in the compartment, that was used for infantrymen in the M2. Scouts operate ground reconnaissance radar and other equipment. A motorcycle is also carried in this compartment to fulfill special tasks.
Hi Frenchie,
Reminded me of the M113 and Lynx comparison:
“The ASCOD Scout makes me think of the U.S. M3 Bradley, comparing with the M2 IFV Bradley.”
However, the “fightiness” seems to have gone to the power of two with the Bradley evolution, whereas the M113 to Lynx was more like finding the middle-way between Warrior and CVR(T)?
Hi ACC,
The MoD seems to have changed its doctrine, no longer have small vehicles that are hiding in a barn and observe, it’s to have a large vehicle that destroys the enemy reconnaissance forces. It’s a matter of protection, a Scimitar would be destroyed by a mine, while a ASCOD SV no. Also a Land Rover weighs 2 tons, while a Foxhound weighs 7.5 tons.
ACC, paul g,
I would really like to know where the concept that either BAE or GD reduced the number of roadwheels came from. I cannot find any pictures of either CV90, ASCOD or Scout derivatives with less than 7 roadwheels each side.
Paul g,
The M113A3 has fuel tanks in those locations. More usually they are stowage bins and are commonly found on CV90, M2 and Warrior. Thus far they haven’t been noted as being a problem.
@ Mr.fred
There was a version of Warrior with one less road wheel and fitted with 25mm Bushmaster.
Hi mr. Fred,
Interference in the channel:
- BAE reduced the number of road wheels to make the design more scout, from an “IFV” design (other countries have not found it to be a contradiction, and use std issue as a scout, and perhaps something cheaper to go along with the MBTs as an IFV)
- mobility trials (there were versions in service, like Bradley included), were not kind to ASCOD
– that is were their extra came from(whereas on the other side it was a minus one from the beginning)
Is there any tracked vehicles smaller and stronger than the ASCOD or CV90?
ACC,
I have a number of pictures of the CV90 Scout mockup that most definately has seven roadwheels, just the same as the regular CV90 vehicles. Likewise, every picture I have of the ASCOD, both in service and of CGI mockups (and now the PT3 Mule) shows seven roadwheels.
Warrior, of course, has six, as does the Bradley.
@mr fred i remember the bins on warrior,luckily i always exited at a casual saunter (seeing i was only there to fix ‘em not fight in ‘em) bins were normally full of shite! just that bins on the ascod look a lot bigger/lower which why i thought they had another purpose,still think they would be a pain in the arse!
found no photos but there was defo a proposal, this was in one article that i have cut and pasted, so whether it was ever built who knows!
“Customer nation-produced turrets mated to Swedish-built CV90 hulls is a typical BAE Systems work-share arrangement. BAE has proposed a modified CV90 ‘platform’ as a possibility for FRES SV. Such a hull would be shortened (with one fewer set of road wheels) to better suit it to recce”
paul g,
And yet the presented demonstrator had seven roadwheels.
from Frenchie; “It’s a matter of protection, a Scimitar would be destroyed by a mine, while a ASCOD SV no”
Well that all depends on the mine . . . however assuming a modern AT mine then the Scimitar loses a track and is immobilised while an ASCOD-SV . . . loses a track and is immobilised. Recovery (assuming the correct side ends up in control of that particular bit of the world) can then be attempted.
It’s a grave mistake to use your Scouts as fighting vehicles.
Equally, SV hits a bigger mine and the crew survives while CVR(T) hits the same mine and turns into tinfoil.
It’s a grave mistake to use vehicle that are not fighting vehicles as fighting vehicles. Insisting that your scout vehicles are not fighting vehicles ensures that your prejudices are met without addressing the fundamental truth behind the statement.
A scout with no fighting ability will only ever know what the enemy allows him (deliberately or accidentally) to know. If he can fight for the information, then he can start finding out what the enemy does not want him to know, which is far more valuable.
Likewise, if you have no fighting capacity, then if you have a vehicle in your formation immobilised in the face of the enemy, you are definitely going to lose it. A formation with fighting power and organic recovery will be able to recover the immobilised vehicle.
The bigger mine argument is a self licking lollipop. Mines, as opposed to IEDs, are usually fairly small and designed to be laid quickly, often by hand, and to blow the tracks or wheels off anything that drives over them. OK, some are cleverer than that and employ shaped or plate charges but if you drive your ASCOD-SV over one of those then it’s belly armour is no more likely to save you than a Scimitar’s would. If, however, you’re facing IED’s then no matter how big and heavy your scout is the insurgents will just bury more explosive and why are you using your incredible expensive scouts for patrol work when your LPPVs would be a better and cheaper option?
“A scout with no fighting ability will only ever know what the enemy allows him ”
Who said that scouts should be unable to fight? I said use then as scouts not as fighting vehicles. Light tanks die on the modern battlefied as they can’t survive hits from LAWs, ATGWs or the cannon mounted on modern IFVs. Use your expensive scouts as light tanks (and FRES-SV is basically a light tank with a tall, IFV sized profile) and they will die. A scout needs enough direct, line of sight firepower to get it out of trouble should it bump into an enemy in force (in which case I’d suggest IR screening smoke and the ability to travel very quickly back the way you came would be a scout’s greatest assets) or to kill it’s opposite numbers should it be unlucky enough to meet them.
A scout would be far better used to designate targets for other units from a position of safety – preferably turret down via systems mounted on a tescopic mast.
I suspect that I got confused when you posted that scouts should not be used as fighting vehicles.
Your last comment describes an OPV more than a Scout. Personally I think that all vehicles should be able to conduct remote target hand-off and designation these days, but the dedicated role is one for an OPV.
Regarding bigger mines or IEDs, you aren’t going to sideline a large proportion of your armoured force with some of the best sensor fits because they aren’t patrol vehicles. You will still be conducting deliberate operations and the enemy will most likely deploy stacked mines in order to cause casualties.
Off Shore Patrol Vessel??
Obviously OPV is a Three Letter Acronym with at least two meanings!
Observation Post Vehicle. Originally artillery spotters, these are increasingly also able to call in airstrikes and ensure that arty doesn’t interfere with aircraft.