So to start is £500M a lot of money for a vehicle development? (I have no service experience but I am an Accountant and also an Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineer).

Answer: YES, I say this for the reasons already given, the design is 1) more or less available as an off the shelf product 2) The product can’t possibly be as technical nor as material exquisite as say a plane, or even a ship for that matter.

So if I had paid this sum what would I expect? Well put simply, given it could be purchased off the shelf, the design, development and testing of an effective, efficient and cheap production process. As well as a top notch tested product.

If this money included production/manufacturing engineering design development test and manufacture I might just might start understanding it. However as it is I think someone somewhere got too friendly with the supplier.

Is it really necessary to reinvent the loo? Because that’s what it seems like. I would put on hold FRES, it sounds to me like another Nimrod. (and Gaud knows why they persisted with that, a Comet airframe? …. they could have designed and built a new one for that amount of money …. oh sorry they did).

For £500M I would expect a complete production line built with staff recruited AND a well designed, tried and tested product.

Having said that I hope my post points out that there is product design and production design. Too often quotes for design development and test are simply unrealistic. Time to give everyone a chance to better their targets. (The T45 maybe did this but because the target was moved it is perceived to be a failure….. very poor management).

Bushmaster is a monocoque and is therefore not based on a chassis.

As for the rest, thank you but I am aware that Australia is a big place.

By way of perspective London – Damascus is about 3500km, and London – Hanover, ie Saxon scale, is about 700km.

It was probably selected by NL because they were jointly in Oruzgun with Aust, so it made sense.

Bushmaster is a protective vehicle like Mastif and Saxon. Driven RAAC it was designed to transport infantry from Brisbane and Townsville to N and NW Australia, mostly over unpaved roads and tracks in a scenario based on smallscale ‘lodgements’ where limited use of normal miltary type landmines might be expected on tracks.

Please re-read my post. Bushmaster is a v-hull monocoque and therefore not based on a Unimog or any other standard truck chassis.

Dingo on the other hand is based on the Unimog chassis with Dingo 2 being based on the Unimog 5000.

That isn’t me. :p

However, the experts seem to take the view that building on a standard truck chassis is an idea whose time has passed. The threats and requirments have evolved and more more modern solutions are required. Foxhound is an example of more modern concepts reflecting the experience of the last decade.

IIRC UK SAS used Unimogs as their standard support vehicle (when such things were needed), no surprise that a Unimog with armour would attract them, just like Saxon on a Bedford chassis – although this was developed and deployed in a fraction of the time that Bushmaster took. And when SAS ordered their 3 handfuls the exchange rate was a lot more favourable. Now Bushmasters are probably grossly overpriced outside Aust.

Thank you for your informative reply.

2 points however:
1)I think it is extremely unlikely in these days of WFM that the UK would order 1000+ of any AFV let alone a relatively expensive 8×8.

2)Boxer’s modularity might add weight without adding significant protection but it has the advantage of opening up the possibility of significant UK input.

I have no idea of the figures but would imagine that a “mission module” made of composites as with Foxhound would be significantly lighter than one of armoured steel and would exploit the UK’s expertise in this area of manufacturing.

@Obsvr

The Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle or Infantry Mobility Vehicle is an Australian-built wheeled armoured vehicle. It was originally designed by Irish company Timoney Technology Ltd under a licence agreement with Perry Engineering in Adelaide; that licence was sold, with permission granted by Timoney as required by the licence terms, to Thales Australia.

The Bushmaster is a mine protected vehicle and provides a high degree of protection against land mines, using its v-hull monocoque to deflect the blast away from the vehicle and its occupants.

Bushmaster is being used successfully in Afghanistan by Australian and Dutch forces and by our own SAS.

This does not mean a total stop on new item buys, if you need something, you need something, so get it, but if it’s an item that isn’t time critical, why not wait a bit? Not like there is a race ongoing is there?

It hurts it is so simple…….

And yes I know there is a difference between 8×8 and a protected (MRAP) 4×4. But seeing as the likes of the Taliban don’t field 8×8, can be combated with .50 and 40mm grenades, the expense of the 8×8, and the likelihood that the enemy that the UK will face over the next 3 decades will be of a similar ilk to the Taliban then I wonder how much of a need the British Army has for an 8×8 when you look at the Warrior upgrade programme. Not saying an 8×8 shouldn’t be purchased to plug some holes in the Warrior based formations if a tracked vehicle can’t be found. Not saying I wouldn’t like the UK to have a couple of brigades mounted in 8×8 if we could afford it. I do have some silly ideas about 8×8 amphibious mounted UK landing force if we could afford the 8x8s and the billion or two of shipping.

I know about the 8×8 being able to kill AFVs. I stay next to a Terrex factory…

The RPG7 resistance though is not due to the armour, or rather not due to armour thickness. The “slates” on the anti-RPG bars crushes the outer skin of the RPG round into the inner shaped charge cone. Since the RPG fuse uses the outer shell as a conductor to complete the electrical circuit, having it touch the inner cone equals a short circuit and the round doesn’t blow.

The Piranha I hear, has underpar mine resistance, par being STANAG 12kg TNT, the standard charge that goes into an AT mine.

The current generation of 8x8s are fighting vehicles not merely taxis. They can take out other 8x8s, tracked MICVS and even tanks when fitted with larger 105mm-120 mm guns or ATGWs. They can provide direct fire support for dismounted infantry as well as indirect fire support.

To do this they need the right combination of mobility, protection and firepower. The weight distribution of an 8×8 chassis provides an order of magnitude better cross-country ability due to a lower ground pressure. Most moden 8x8s can withstand 7kg IED blasts at the axle, RPG7 direct hits and 14.7 mm machine gun fire. That is pretty good and compares well to original Warrior levels f protection.

Sadly, we can’t obtain VCBI or Boxer at a lower cost than the French or German armies have acquired them for. With Patria, however, it might be a different story. Ultimately, cost will be discated by where they are built. If we order 1,000+, then we will almost certainly want to build them in the UK and that luxury will inflate the price tag.

I am not a fan of Mike Jackson. I know few senior military people who are. Not only did he abandon Boxer, he also completely sabotaged the merger of Scottish Division regiments (but that is another story and a whole new thread). I doubt we would ever admit we were wrong on Boxer and now buy them. That said, I think the breed has moved on since Boxer was signed off. Better V-hull underside designs, improved suspension systems, and improved spall liners are allowing significantly increased protection. Boxer’s modularity adds weight without adding significant protection where it is most needed.

The italians, who have shown surprising innovation in this area and long before anyone else, are now moving on to 2nd generation 8x8s. The SUPERAV is amphibious and does what Warthog does with greater protection (20 tonnes). The FRECCIA with a 40 mm CTA turret could be an interesting option (28 tonnes). And, soon there will be the Centauro II with a 120 mm gun on a lower 8×8 chassis (30 tonnes). All three vehicles use the same basic platform. It is a very well engineered system with incredible cross-country mobility. We need to look at it.

Piranha V seems to have been over-specified. It seems very big and box-like, as well as being heavy, it is top heavy. It is well protected but less agile. Some people believe that a Piranha IV with better underbody protection might actually be preferable.

In comparison to all these, the RG35 is somewhat dated and doesn’t yet benefit from the latest hydraulic suspension systems, although conceivably it could be updated. Beware of glossy marketing. I believe the many posited versions are mostly vapourware.

X,

You made a very solid observation. Get an experienced RSM and put him in-charge of testing assisted by other seasoned warrant officers, REME technical staff, and you’ll get a robust recommendation within 12 months.

That wasn’t me.

And the Unimog is an awesome, awesome vehicle too.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/diggers-wounded-in-afghan-operations/2874824

I think you are both underestimating how bloody awful Saxon is and how capable Bushmaster is in the protected role. The latter is light years head of the former.

The Australians call the Bushmaster an infantry mobility vehicle. Their AFV is the LAV (Piranha).

In a similar fashion the Dutch have Boxer and Bushmaster, the French have VBCI and VAB and the Germans have (arguably) Boxer and Dingo 2.

The UK cannot afford to equip all btns with an AFV and have also to take account of the incorporation of UOR vehicles.

At the same time, running a wheeled road march into an enemy position is going to be a problem because you have no direct-fire combatants (i.e. tanks) to deal with enemy AFVs or positions.

I bow to your superior knowledge of 8×8 v 6×6.
But if you are suggesting that the UK can obtain Boxer at a lower UPC than Germany or VBCI at a lower UPC than France then I beg to differ.

You also say that our failure to invest in an 8×8 is a national embarrassment. I agree with the sentiment but the UK was of course a full partner in Boxer and many of its current attributes are a consequence of British input.The one to blame is Gen Mike Jackson who dropped Boxer in favour of FRES.

RG35 attracts support because of the number of different versions illustrated in its advertising video. In this regard Boxer could be even better as it is a modular design that could offer interchangeable “mission modules” in the same manner as Foxhound.

@Obsvr

You claim that Bushmaster is a standard truck chassis with an armoured shell added. Which truck chassis is it based on?

I understand that Bushmaster is based on an original Timoney design.

In any event it is in the role of a modern day Saxon that I and x (and Mr Fred although he favours RG35) are advocating Bushmaster.

I’ m glad you mentioned a certain consultancy firm who have got the job twice (through connections at the highest political levels), the job still being in a total mess when Bernard Gray took over (for the 3rd go at it, so to say)to try and sort it out.

RE “On the other hand the introduction of UOR vehicles does seem to be highlighting the reliability risks with under-developed vehicles. I’d suggest that the cost of bringing UOR vehicles up to an acceptable reliability baseline isn’t value for money (particularly when you factor in the cost of shipping them back to UK), although it might be useful to know what that baseline is”
- both the UK and US statistics show the AMRAPS availability in field conditions in high 60s (%).
- not just shipping them back to the UK for what would need something akin to remanufacture (originals lines were in the US?), but setting up such facilities from scratch… In the press (pinch of salt?) A cost estimate of four times the original purchase price was quoted (that’s what doing hundreds vs thousands does). So run them to ground (the better ones) as interim gap fillers and accept the reliability as it is?

10% development costs is low, the usual figure used to be 15% but historically MoD seldom did this.

FRES Utility seems to have been forgotten, shortlist (Boxer, VCMI, Piranha) led to the latter, but MoD and the contractor were unable to agree a contract, which makes one wonder what MoD put in the RFT and whether the contractor. tendered in good faith. Wouldn’t be the first company ‘accepting’ the proposed Ts&Cs planning to swing them during contract negotiation.

Vehicles like Scout are complex systems, systems integration does not come cheap. There’s also the matter of how much of the other 7 DLODs are covered. But cheap is irrelevant, what counts is ‘value for money’, the normal criteria for government (and I assume other) procurement. I suspect it’s Treasury procurement policy.

I wouldn’t touch Bushmaster, it’s a near antique design concept, a standard truck chassis with an armoured shell added, think of it as a newer version of the Humber 1 ton ‘Pig’ or Saxon. What current experience is showing is that AFVs need a design that takes serious account of IEDs and mines, lower hull design is a critical element of this. IEDs are with us, they will feature in all types of foreseeable operations.

I’d argue that the historic UK AFV problem has been reliability. I’ve always put this down to the assumed short operational life of AFVs, which was fair enough in WW2 but not a good premise in a peacetime army. Availability (ie Reliabilty x Maintainability) then became the cry, Maintainability design went well (eg think pack lifts and engine umbilicals) and was wonderful for empire building REME headcount, but reliabilty wasn’t really addressed until reliability growth progams were invented, IIRC the first was AS90 (a model procurement in many ways) and that proved itself, according to published sources, in 2001 when it demonstrated higher reliability than any other AFV. Scout seems to have a planned reliability growth program of 2-3 yrs, which seems about right.

On the other hand the introduction of UOR vehicles does seem to be highlighting the reliability risks with under-developed vehicles. I’d suggest that the cost of bringing UOR vehicles up to an acceptable reliability baseline isn’t value for money (particularly when you factor in the cost of shipping them back to UK), although it might be useful to know what that baseline is. Foxhound might be the exception, it’s being rushed into service and no reliability growth, expect problems and a new post Afg build baseline.

When I said Monty was right I meant about not having a national 8×8 and it being a shame. Though not being able to pick one of the many is still more of a shame.

But I think the majority of British infantry will spend the foreseeable future on peacekeeping, if not COIN, operations where perhaps a 4×4 MRAP will be a better fit than a full blooded 8×8 AFV.

The 8x8s seem to be the answer for making an operational move and then getting stuck in to a direct fire battle at the end of it. Is that what we are after?

Yes you right. The majority of those countries produce their own 8x8s and so perhaps have an incentive to buy and build a fleet. We have BAE whose vehicle portfolio seems to come mostly from acquisitions or seems to be concepts that will never see anywhere than the testing ground. And then we have the MoD who would rather waste zillions on tests, designs studies, etc. etc. than buy any number of off the shelf vehicles that seem to be good enough to satisfy are European friends.
Often I have said the MoD should have got some samples off the various defence firms, got the RSMs from the infantry, some rep’s from the REME, and spent a fortnight or a week or whatever evaluating. Simple.