This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Reverting back to spit protection from splinters in “Spitterskyddad” SEP; there is also a typo in Piranha V (above the two updated images).
Would be good to relate to how often these ” the DSG focussed on enduring stabilisation of counter insurgency” have been published (otherwise) as it is a sort of an official confirmation of the “state of mind”.
It really beats me why these support versions would suddenly become redundant and obsolete if and when the front-line units are (quite rightly) deemed t need something else?
“Wolfhound: TSV (Heavy). Heavy armoured support trucks – supporting and re-supplying Mastiffs in the highest threat areas. These vehicles will have the highest levels of mine blast protection;
Husky: TSV (Medium). Medium armoured support trucks – carrying out the support roles in lower threat areas and where heavy vehicles, like Mastiff, cannot be used;
Coyote: TSV (Light). Light armoured support vehicles – supporting Jackals across the harsh terrain of Afghanistan.”
This part of the “Medium” definition – did we have one before that? – refers to the Stryker concept of distributed operations, over a wide area:
” sustained ground manoeuvre, exploiting the advantages of firepower, mobility, increased levels of FP and access to wide area and specific ISTAR”
which again means that your “rear” or the tail part of the formations will need to be separately protected (that part is there) but being self-sustaining is NOT there?
Together with this one
” required General Dynamics to concede something that they were never going to give”
some deliberation about the over the years changes in the contracting model are called for?
“and” applique armour package…Reference
About the “blocks”:
When “up to 35” of such Scout were first mooted, and then binned, the special offer of 38 Warriors converted to existing bridging kit, already sold to Malaysia and Indonesia on Stormer, surfaced. So where the Terrier statement comes from? As in:
The separate Manoeuvre Support Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridge (AVLB) requirement would most likely be met with Terrier.
“signalled two things;
The future of the British armoured vehicle industry would pivot on FRES SV and Warrior CSP contracts.
A warning shot to BAE.
And so came about what seemed like a buy anything but BAE policy in armoured fighting vehicles resulting in the drawn-out demise of the legacy of Alvis, GKN, Sankey and Vickers.”
Very complicated, and comes up in too much of a condensed form!
Quite a key point here:
“He also revealed that initial chassis production would be carried out in Spain followed by a transfer to the UK.”
” BAE stated that initial production would take place at the production facility in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden with some integration work carried out in the UK.”
Are these statements about the same or different? Transfer (100%) vs. integration (initially, or that was to be all)?
“CVR(T) was increasingly showing its age and given the FRES UV was never likely to be in service in Afghanistan by the time the UK completed its deployment, there was much less of a rush for UV so it was back burnered, like OUVS.”
is probably meant as a summarising sentence/ paragraph. But: as the leading in comes in from nowhere, it does not work as such.
Ref GD release of Piranha V images – from dim memory I thought Piranha V was not just a different shape, but different size (considerably bigger) and fitted with different suspension compared to Piranhas I through III? Not so much an upgrade as a completely new vehicle given the family name?
Also not clear reading through this early 2008 text that Piranha V didn’t at the time exist in any form and was, to borrow an RN CPO’s term for such things, vapourware. Having a trial between two contenders for the job and one ageing stand-in, then selecting the one absent non-existent product based upon its marketing flyer (or some such collection of “trust us” promises) made the trial a mockery. But probably fits perfectly with the levels of common sense prevailing in the FRES world.
Please correct me if this is an incorrect or unfair assessment of these Trials of TruthReference
Ref 2009 Def Cmtee report – “members of committee were aghast at this but the exchange about chassis commonality and …” after which there is nothing about chassis commonality?Reference
Ref “Somewhat puzzling was the requirement for it to weigh 30 tonnes yet still be transportable in a 20 tonne payload C-130. And then in the same pack, was a revision to transportability, back to A-400M and C-17. I can only assume this slide was a hangover from previous FRES requirements” – I can’t find to what this text refers? Missing graphics?Reference
Ref “anything but BAE policy” – you have to wonder if this came about by one or more of these factors:
1. BAE bought United Defense and made it the ‘owner’ of all BAE’s land systems businesses including the Alvis Vickers (GKN) group and the ex Royal Ordnance and VSEL Land div. A bit of an own goal as only months before, when out-bidding GD for Alvis Vickers, BAE was playing the nationalistic card for all it was worth, stating GD would strip the fine heritage of armour manufacturing out of the UK and turn it into something American.
2. Also in 2009 BAE announced mass closures of the UK part of Land Systems (citing FRES delay as their main reason) – not sure if this was pre- or post-“anything but BAE” becoming known.
3. As with Bedford Truck years before, MOD has applied “anything but” edicts when its mandarins decide they have excess reliance on specific suppliers. Nothing to do with being poorly served by the incumbent – Bedford supported the British Army very well – but more to do with not showing who’s boss. In the case of Bedford it wiped the business out as they’d put an understandably large effort (but more than they could afford to lose) into offering exactly what the User wanted. In the case on BAE its trashed the UK’s ‘heritage’ armour manufacturing capability such that at best (as it stands) any UK armour manufacturing effort will be assembly of, or integration work on, foreign designed and manufactured platforms. Way to go, MOD.Reference
Summary seems to refer to 2008 if read in isolation, where much of the cat-herding progress happened through 2009 – this needs clarification.
On a style note, the previous generations of the FRES story seemed to highlight and expose areas of waste, abandoned investment and outright stupidity with much greater clarity. The tone of text though this latest series is so muted that the reader is often left to tease out genuinely scandalous decision-making from a sea of ‘also at this time’ facts that all but swamp things that need to be noticed. While the facts are fulsome, the analysis seems terse compared to the previous generation texts? Its a bit like the TD hurricane we’ve known for years that ripped the roof off scandals and showed them for what they are has lost some of its gusto, and things that deserve scrutiny are escaping with cover-ups intact. At the risk of sniggers at the back of the room, I think we need a TD with more wind…
this, as Chris puts it “escaping with cover-ups intact” would be a great shame as there are still unashamed apologists touting their wares to the opposite effect (without letting the audience know what their hidden interest either in the matter directly, or with the parties that were then involved, is)
Thanks all, will pick the feedback up this week
On the tone, yes, have dialled it back in these sections as I want them to be a bit vanilla.
When we get to the end, I hope to summarise the entire story and offer a few more robust opinions.
So dry and factual up to that point, both barrels then!
OK TD, if vanilla is the new black. But the point remains that there is so much information of all levels of importance and relevance to FRES mixed up together that a reader (me, in this case) misses important stuff almost because eyes are glazing over. You know; the big report you have to review but no matter how many times you try you find yourself turning pages having read every word without any of it getting through to consciousness? Maybe a minor degree of grouping of stuff to do with particular projects with headings to separate them? Just to help the concentration?
I would second the idea of sub-headings as the main headings in a chronological structure derive from… just that!
RE “with headings to separate them? Just to help the concentration?”
How about if one of you fine gents summarised the relevant sections for me, take outs of note, as we progress through the story?
Or, I could generate a callout box linked to key points and comments in the text
Come to think of it, I quite like the idea of a callout box as it allows a combination of the dry factual story telling to carry out and if the reader wants to access a pithy comment, they are there
The calout boxes could be different colours, in an accordian or tab, a hover box or right/left aligned callout
Have a think, let me know if there are any takers and I will mock up a page with the different types, then we can have a discussion about which one looks best
I think it would be helpful to split each year into themes which carry the year as a reminder and start each year section with a summary identifying subsections.
So you might have:
In 2008, FRES veered from a promising start to being a four-letter word staring with ‘F’, BAE showed it’s Warrior upgrade and operational reality identified those vehicles found wanting and resulted in a swathe of new procurement.
FRES in 2008
Warrior in 2008
Operational vehicles in 2008
In 2009, FRES changed focus from a wheeled infantry vehicle to a tracked Recce vehicle. More UOR vehicles were acquired and some wacky computer generated concepts escaped from thunderbirds
FRES in 2009
Operational vehicles in 2009
Future concepts 2009
Or, if you want to keep the chronological order, split it into months or other periods less than a year to break it up a bit. It takes a few goes through to realise that’s what is intended, as the dates are not immediately obvious as they are buried in the text.
In which case:
If we have the style by Thursday, then from there to Sunday I could draft what goes into them (the boxes).
But that would need a Word document of the text so far, as I have really not got the hang of this in-line system. Preferably a version where only the text, including the texts under the photos, but without the photos there, adding length (page breaks can easily be made visible in Word, and these boxes would eat up extra space, in their final form, anyway).
BTW, the “boxes” could also be used for “vignettes” that, as a short story, typify what was going on more generally.
Have a book (History of Europe that is almost like two building bricks put together) where this has been used as a technique to lighten up the read… and the reader’s mood, as some of them are well known, some are lighthearted
Let me have a think on this, am liking the idea, might need some reworking of the content though
Will be in touch
Have yet to do all the changes suggested on this one, but next section, ready for review
We are in the home stretch now gents!
Have done the text anchor points and what to add/ summarise/ x-ref in the related “boxes”
When the format gets clearer, happy to do more “wordsmithing” on the broader points I have listed, or may be it is good to pass the button back and forth so that the style in “such boxes” is not TOO MUCH different from the main text.
I assume you are lining up/polishing the existing pieces
“We are in the home stretch now gents!”
so that they give a solid launching platform the missing one or two?
Just finished up to 2013
This is still work in progress through