This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Good stuff, as it is an excerpt from the middle of the flow, will leave general comments for later.
It feels like ISTAR and FireWire make an appearance before they existed, but could be just down to the fact that in the 90s I was too busy to be reading about defence at this sort of technical level.
good stuff TD; this is coming along nicely.
I note that the TRACER narrative starts to get a bit closer to the truth about that programme than has been presented here (and elsewhere) previously.
It’s a project that has gotten away with little scrutiny because it was cancelled before the issues became apparent. there were two that were interlinked- firstly the ultimate cost was grossly out of proportion with the significance of the role. Compounding this problem was that the individual technologies and subsystems involved were at nowhere near the TRLs they were believed in some quarters to be. Had the programme been allowed to continue it would have turned into a clusterf**k of epic proportions.
Scout being a e metal box with a conventional diesel drive-train inst an example of technological conservatism but the result of lessons it took far too long to learn about the realities of technology maturity.
Let us note the following: Carter “was” an infanterist, as with the rise through the echelons you are “supposed to” forget your affliations – to be more exact, how your brain has been conditioned to work..
“Was” is of course about the theoretical thinking; in here we are trying to find out how the British Army is going to (try to) mix the Armoured Corps (the real tanks and cavalry, lately of the recce fame) and infantry… that, without, no one that I know of has, so far, won a war without?
Ref FFLAV and BMR – the alvis FFLAV offering included BMR600 but this was no Austrian; it was Santa Barbara Sistemas (later ENESA, later still GD) a Spanish company. THe same company that will be building Ajax and family.Reference
Ref MRAV “contract covered the full development and a production option for the first 600 vehicles at a value of approximately €750” Brilliant! That’s about £1 each – put me down for a dozen!
I’m guessing it should read 750 *million* Euros?Reference
Ref “Might be worth remembering this as you read on, MRAV was too heavy” – I think at the time MRAV was predicted to be a 33t GVW vehicle? Might be worth also including the MRAV GVW in that sentence as in “MRAV at 33t was too heavy” just in case readers think it was heading off towards MBT weights?Reference
Ref “despite the offer from Rheinmetall” – offer? What offer was that then? None referenced in the text above?Reference
General point on MRAV text – towards the end the timeline all gets a bit muddled – for example in 1999 there’s a Nick Prest press release referencing ARTEC, but the sentence describing the ARTEC consortium appears amongst stuff dated as 2001? All a bit jumbly to me.
All updates incorporated and the final piece added.
Ready for review
Ref companies involved in Bushranger bidding – more confusion. BAe/Shorts, ANI/Reumech=ASVS, Perry/Timony, Transfield/ThyssenHenschel & Westrac/TFM were the starters, the last two dropped out leaving BAE, ADI & Perry. ANI the same as ADI? In the next paragraph ANI is back. Confusion as in ADI is referenced earlier than ANI and later than, so its not clear how these relate.Reference
Ref TRACER feasibility study groupings – the three teams I recognise from my latter days at Alvis but immediately below them there is a line about an Alvis/GKN proposal? Until the merger Alvis & GKN were best of enemies business-wise; certainly in my experience there were no cooperative ventures between them. So. Was the offer of Recce Warrior a GEC/GKN team thing as part of the 1994 submission, or was it post 1998 when Alvis had merged/taken over with GKN Defence? Presumably before 1999 when Alvis GEC United Defense and Raytheon formed team Lancer. All these regroupings and reforming teams are making my head hurt…Reference
RE In favourable terrain, a wheeled vehicle performed better but as soon as the terrain became less favourable their speed advantage was lost and time spent navigating around unpassable terrain meant that it both spent more time exposed to enemy observation and fire, and less time doing its main job
… could make for a good x-reference to “today”
The pictures following (immediately below) include the one where observation cones, from behind an obscuring feature, still “observe” something at the ground level
… is this one of those where the promises were one step ahead of reality?
The Nexter video on Vextra is so impressive that it “calls for” a comment on the orthodoxy in the mind set of the buyer:
– was available, then
– is going to be ordered about now
– a bit player, who was given two BTR-80s to play with and told: do better , “or else” we will buy some of these… has received 1400-2000 orders for theirs by now!
“Team International”” comes up in text before being intro’ed (as a term/ concept).
“would replace the French AMX-10RC, VAB and ERC-90 Sagaie ” may be a worthwhile mention that the prototype (only just) made it to the Bastille Day… this year – 2017!
A “funny” x-ref here could be:
Team International threatened legal action because the original requirement called for a 6×6 design, and Eurokonsortium had submitted their winning 8×8 at a late stage. ”
as AMV, originally was presented as 6×6, or 8×8… any way you want it
– but nobody has ordered a 6×6!
“benefits, including improved interoperability and financial savings, through sharing of development costs and economies of scale in production. The project also offers UK industry the opportunity to strengthen its links with the leading companies in the European armoured vehicles industry”
– talk about too many cooks in the kitchen!
And this would come back, to bite, once it became evident that the “integrators” of the industry actually came from America:
“the Defence Ministers announced on 20 April that they would give high priority to resolving a number of governmental issues – for example relating to security and intellectual property rights –…”
Even the language tells – ahead of what was going to happen – that the folks drawn onto ministerial seats (you know, you are meant to have enough knowledge to be able to execute the will or intent…the Executive Branch!) had no clue:
as governmental is used as a synonym for “Governance”
– is there something wrong with the folks that speak English as their mother tongue… they just do not know what the words actually mean? Or is it the education that makes them think that they do know… based on studying the literature a hundred years back?
I take it that this is all between friends?
As declared: the comments will be deleted as each installment (or all of it, in one go) will be released for wider circulation?
Team International, image 2 (LHR) would make a good companion for the similar Warrior image (earlier on in the story)
– the image RHS really contributes nothig
There we go; bring women into judging what AFVs should be able to do:
“Baroness Symons, the defence procurement minister,…
The statement says that they (the vehicles) will need to be able to serve tea and bring peace
Now, moving on from being too close to sexist [it was a statement of facts!]
54 Armoured Personnel Carriers and 21 Command Vehicles fully operational in a Mechanised Infantry Battalion and Brigade Headquarters
– so, in our en game the SEG will need that many of the base version and about half of the Command version, for them to be able to simulate a whole bde on “manoeuvres”
Boxer in this one
“UK planning assumptions were for a number of variants; armoured personnel carrier, command vehicle, communications vehicle (CommV), mortar carrier (ATV), Anti-Tank Platoon (ATPV) and two configurations of Armoured Treatment and Evacuation Vehicle (ATEV) across a total order of 775 vehicles, replacing FV432, some CVR(T) and Boxer.”
is out of place
and latterly Iraq, has demonstrated the need for rapid deployability in expeditionary operations
O yeah, you do a full scale exercise, one year head, in Oman. Replace, then , not only the boots that melt, but also the engine intake filters on Chally2’s so that they are not defeated by the fine sand – rather than by the enemy)
V rapid, indeed (also on the day… what; half a year? or thereabouts)
1994 also marked the start of Phase 2A, the search for a purpose built IIMV replacement, thirteen companies expressed an interest and five shortlisted; British Aerospace, ANI, Perry Engineering, Transfield Defence Systems and Westrac.
ANI teamed with Reumech Austral to form a joint venture (Australian Specialised Vehicle Systems) with a modified version of the Mamba known as Taipan. Transfield Defence System teamed with Thyssen Henschel to offer the TM-170. Perry Engineering teamed with Timony to offer a version of their MP44 APC. Westrac allied with TFM to offer the RG-12 Nyala and finally, BAE Australia offered the Shorts Brothers developed Foxhound (no, not that one)
By the end of 1996, Transfield and Westrac withdrew, leaving BAE Australia, ADI and Perry Engineering”
is too much detail
If you want affordable protected mobility with ability to swim Protolab has you covered. PMPV 6×6 Protected MultiPurpose Vehicle. Weight 14 tonnes, Stanag 1 ballistic as base and mine protection 4a/4b, can be armoured up to level 5 ballistic protection. Maximum GVW 24 tonnes on road and 20 tonnes off-road. 2+10 carrying capacity, the seats fold and pallets can be loaded. Price 500K€ for base model.
This vehicle is 85% solution for MRAV at probably 1/3 the price tag of a Boxer. Especially interesting is the possibility to mount level 5 ballistic protection on a 6×6. I think this vehicle has a lot of potential for a number of things and hopefully will see light of day soon enough. It has just recently finished deveploment and is waiting for orders. Upgrade protection to 5/4a/4b to move around infantry and 3/4a/4b for engineers and 1/4a/4b for all the rest.
You (TehF) are right; the utube thingy when Markku Alen takes it for a spin (or, really, climbing over cliffs) is quite amusing.
What I had missed
“Weight 14 tonnes, Stanag 1 ballistic as base and mine protection 4a/4b, can be armoured up to level 5 ballistic protection. Maximum GVW 24 tonnes on road and 20 tonnes off-road. ”
is that the fantastic own weight to payload ratio (10 tonnes difference) does not hold for serious x-country… and then you will need to factor in the protection levels, too.
So I would say “no” for infantry and “yes” for anything else. Now, about those Mastiffs and Ridgebacks that we have aplenty… not to mention the Huskies that are more pliable to role changes
OK, the Balkans to go
… put in some comments in advance
It seems this is supposed to be behind a password but one has access to here through the last comments part at bottom of the page.
… except that there is no draft text, to comment on.
The US Securities Commission made front running a crime!
I wasn’t egging people on, with advance comments
“… put in some comments in advance”
I was merely (much earlier on) pointing out that the complex Jugoslavia engagement set whole new stds for e.g. mine protection, even when folks were being sent in there to keep the peace (not for fighting).
Next one draft ready
Yes, the designer has stated that maximum off-road weight is 20 tonnes so you still got 6 tonnes of payload before that. An infantry squad with weapons, ammo/munitions and rucksacks might weigh about a tonne or so. Not sure if the vehicle is still amphibious at 24 tonnes as there is no info about that. Nevertheless interesting piece of engineering. As it is basically a truck with propellers and armor it would make good battle taxi and specialist platform. Reading some of the way old comments SO stated that wheels have advantage in mobility over tracks under 18 tonnes so this fits that description if it’s true. The amphibious part is something that really catches my eye. Having a maneuver element with amphibious vehicle has inherent advantage over the rest and can utilize approaches that wouldn’t be possible for non-amphibious vehicles. Deploying QRF wheeled battalions whose INF COYs use amphibious vehicles solely could traverse many rivers of Poland unhindered.