To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions. Personal data will be used for personalisation of ads and cookies may be used for personalised and non-personalised advertising
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Looks great, but I doubt the spoiler on the back is going to make any difference speed-wise…!
Do we know how many have been ordered?
– thinking post-Afghanistan, i.e. how will other procurements be impacted, or is it purely a UOR
Is it a spoiler?!? I thought it might be a solar panel based on the shot at 11 seconds that seemed to suggest a glass surface to the top of the panel.
wow, does this thing really exist!
my question is the same as AAC’s; is this a temporary UOR?
@Tubby
EW (Counter-IED jamming) antenna mounting – currently minus the antennas.
Most vehicles in theatre now have them. The rectangular ‘Spoiler’ is the most common (Panther, Scimitar, Challenger, etc). Mastiff now has small mounts on the roof corners and Warrior has two roughly triangular mounts on the rear of the troop compartment roof.
Please please tell me this is not happening – take one obsolescent turrent from worn out chassis, bolt on bits and pieces and mate with a not-so-worn out chassis, save money, “new” vehicle for deployment…
@JamesD – At least it’s something I guess, rather than muddling on until 2017 or whenever FRES SV’s Scout variant is currently looking at it’s ISD.
We are so slow in this country even for urgent needs. Whilst a different type of role/vehicle, the war fighting focus of the US can be seen in them taking less than 12 months for their M-ATVs to go from competition proposal (Eventual winner Oshkosh’s submission was in Jan ’09), down-selection of winner, fielded prototype and then full on 1000 vehicle per month (per month!) production (by Dec ’09).
@TD – Spamitar (my entry for the ridiculous name bucket)
@JamesD – At least it’s something… and we don’t even know the details
– presumably the body with more volume to help to build in mine resistance ( I am not sure one can tell apart the V-hulled Stryker by looking at it from outside?)
– BAE is working with many types of new armour; any of them in it? Otherwise it is just MG-proof?
If they had just “welded” the two parts together, it would not have taken this long (Welded, well, I guess the turret has to turn)
Stitching together various bits of information to create a theory, there was chat sometime back about procuring new Scimitars due to their all round usefulness as recce vehicles in Afghanistan, however there are persistent rumours that due to the weight having been piled on the vehicles through the UOR process the hulls were cracking- which would of course make new-build Scimitars less than attractive. The Spartan chassis also has a bit more volume which is always useful and could of course take all the automotive upgrades undertaken for the family so far. It seems that the Scimitar Mk2 is actually the Spartan with a Scimitar turret.
FYI: The “spoiler” is for electronic equipment.
Further; It seems like the new-build Scimitar plan never went anywhere and Scimitar 2 will actually use stored Spartan chassis.
TD, nice bit of video. The mk2 is now in theatre and so there will be significantly more information being made publicly available in the next few weeks.
“Scimitar 2 will actually use stored Spartan chassis”, so
– the best one can do to improve the mine resistance is to use the height for a double-floor?
Didn’t the earlier models already get Fox-turrets? Is it those that are on Mk2?
If the chassis comes out of storage, then there will hardly be a plan to try to fit the turrets chosen for FRES (much too big, anyway?).
Clearly we need to await the MoD machine with its official news, but I have it on good authority that the hulls are not old Spartans or old anything.
What I would really like to know is whether there are going to be any variants of the hybrid. From the video it looks just like a basic recce vehicle (à la Scimitar).
If it is to be a vehicle for 16 AA Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade (FRES SV being too heavy etc.), then surely other variants will be needed: e.g. recovery and repair, command, possibly ambulance, etc.
ArmChairCivvy’s question “or is it purely a UOR?” could lead to the right answer, though. Like him, I would love to know the answer to the question “How many have been ordered?”
In answer to the points Bob raised: eg. “there are persistent rumours that due to the weight having been piled on the vehicles through the UOR process the hulls were cracking- which would of course make new-build Scimitars less than attractive.”, I thought I read somewhere very recently that , contrary to many rumours, the hybrid vehicle was still to be new-build but I might have got that wrong. According to the story, I seem to remember, BAE Systems put together a Scimitar turret and a Spartan hull. This ‘vehicle’ was then sent to the Armoured Development Unit at Bovington to see whether the concept would work. As it was successful, the MOD ordered two new vehicles and they were delivered to Bovington earlier this year for further trials.
Anyway, I think it is to be officially unveiled at DSEi in September.
Forget any notion of anything FRES making its way onto this vehicle. FRES-SV is a long term core budget development programme that at the very least will produce some prototypes for a truly excellent vehicle- but that will not be for a while. This is clearly a UOR programme.The hull in that video looks VERY Spartan. There would be other advantages to using the Spartan hull, notably the larger internal volume.
Going well ahead of things with this one:
– active armour is still in trials (battle trials with the Israels at least)
– as it is so new (, expensive) and so far (almost)unproven, all are retro-fits to existing IFVs/ MBTs
There is potential for the CVR (T) class of vehicle becoming feasible again, as the normal armour would only need to suffice against HMGs (Mines, IEDs… a different story).
Put in the hybrid-electric drive (as in SEP) and you might do some sneak-and-beak again (mounted, rather than only dismounted).
Because of the dominant role of electronics (only passive sensors are not hugely power-hungry) in recce versions, battery capacity will never go wasted.
The engine sounds overburdened to me.
Sad, sad, fakkin sad
Is this really all we can achieve / afford, some 40 years after the originals came into service ?
Nothing good to say about this…. :-(
“FRES-SV is a long term core budget development programme that at the very least will produce some prototypes for a truly excellent vehicle”
I just snorted curry . . . At eh very least it will prototype some powertrain upgrades that GD can sell to the Austrians and Spanish. At best it’ll create a new Warrior.
Having 7 of the prototypes, RE
“very least it will prototype some powertrain upgrades that GD can sell to the Austrians and Spanish. At best it’ll create a new Warrior.”
will (just my private thinking) afford tactical trials that establish the true value-add of the new Scout over the Warrior (do we have prototypes of the “Improved” to use, as the programme has been kicked to the long grass repeatedly? Except that now , finally, it should start)
Todays Daily Flail had an item on McClarren. Apart from racing/sports cars, they also make carbon fibre anti IED seats for armoured vehicles. Wonder if they will appear on MoD ordered FRES or CVR?
@RW
Now two with the same ID……. can be confusing
@ACC
Don’t think that the money for FRES SV is mainly about the mechanicals. more the new plug and play electrics etc.
But, much more importantly, the new turret with the CTA gun and CTA ammunition handling and positioning being new technology and needing to be integrated with other turret features so requiring development level funding
Which therefore also means there should be some spin off contribution to the warrior upgrade, through an understanding of such problems as placing CTA ammo outside the turrets crew compartment ( to generate more space) etc…
@John Hartley
nice work by McClaren but why was it for the US office for naval research rather than the MOD !!!!!
http://ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue40/Bradley.pdf
I saw no mention of FRES SV in the latest round of approved funding, but Warrior Upgrade was included. FRES SV may be killed off and Warrior will do its job.
That has to be better than this bastard child of Scimitar and Spartan. Turret = old and outdated without 40 mm CTA cannon. Chassis = old and worn out
Height and weight too great. This must be a one-off feasibility study, wasting tax payers money when the outcome of such trials is easy to predict.
Depressed.
As usual a flying lashup of old bits and 30 year old technology, added up with some up to date electrics.
This is no way to do this long term.
As for FRES I will believe it the day something enters service until then Fres is a bed time story for tired soldiers.
‘Go to bed now and be good little soldiers and in the morning there will be FRES’.
I rather suspect that you could do a lot better than Scimitar in a Scimitar-shaped package.
Aluminium alloys and welding technology has developed a lot since the 1970s. For the same basic package you could get something stronger and better protected.
Power electronics and motors have also developed significantly – you could probably build a Scimitar with a powered and stabilised turret without increasing weight too much, if you didn’t mind keeping a Rarden. That said, you could probably swap for an M230 like the Apache or maybe something more powerful like an MK30 or a Russian 2A42, but it might start getting cramped.
Thanks everyone who pointed out that it was panel for EW antenna mounting – I was thinking solar panel as I presumed it was lashed up UOR solely for Afghanistan. I find it interesting that there appears to be a split in the rumours – half have heard it is new build (so presumably if new build it will have modern armour, power train and sensors, and maybe even a modern gun with some sort of stabilisation ?), while the other half suspect it is a cut and shut designed as a stop gap.
Even if it is new build I see no reason why it would be any different to the UOR variants of the CVR-T family which have already had most of their automotive systems modified, additional armour and upgraded thermal sights. A stabilised gun is highly improbable.
I dont understand the FRES-SV bitching. The vehicle itself will be outstanding and will offer a step-change in capability for the British Army with its combination of mobility, sensors, firepower and protection. There are plenty of questions to be asked about the conduct of British armoured vehicles policy in the last 20 years but from a technical perspective ASCOD-Scout should be outstanding.
BOB
The Fres program has been going for a decade or more if you add in its predecessors even longer.
Half a billion for a box on tracks (of a type that has been in service for 10 years)
And the program is still not producing any actual deployed vehicles. Nor is it likely to do so in the next 5 years, by which time they will have spent the other half of the billion.
And our solider wil still not have any actual kit in service.
Sigh ‘A STEP CHANGE IN CAPABILITY’ Yea right. But (if i believed thay it would), It will only deliver it when it is in service.
The FRES vehicle is derived from the ascod, which is the same vintage as warrior. It is to all intents rather conventional in design terms with little real innovation which will be a rather uninspiring by the time the current mini sdsr add a bit more delay to 2017.
What I still can’t understand is why the Stormer hulls were not used for such a vehicle. When Stormer HVM was first introduced, the British Army had approx. 160 of them. Now the latest plan is, according to at least one source, simply to retain two batteries of the self-propelled HVM in 12 Regiment RA. Although they will be using a vastly improved system, these batteries will probably only field approx.30 vehicles all told (40 with reserves?). What has happened to the other 100+ vehicles? Probably sold off at Withams for a song.
The Stormer is a more recent and more spacious vehicle than the Scimitar. Surely it could have done a job as a recce vehicle for a fair number of years? They can’t be clapped out. Otherwise why continue with them in the Stormer HVM SP role?
” The vehicle itself will be outstanding”
In what way?
” and will offer a step-change in capability for the British Army with its combination of mobility, sensors, firepower and protection”
Apart from sensors it’s no real advance on Warrior.
Bob, this is a serious question; do you actually work for GD?
IXION,
Yes the programme has been going on for years, the vehicle itself will be an excellent piece of kit, and yes it will be s step change in capability, the changes being made to the ASCOD are dramatic to the point that it will effectively be a new vehicle- that takes time.
Jonesey,
What more innovation do you want? What magic technology that is genuinely combat ready is not included? What engineering achievement will render it obsolete? Inspiration is irrelevant capability is paramount and SCOUT-SV has the potential to provide it.
Peter Arundel,
It will be a major advance on Warrior having a higher GVW potential, far better protection and superior mobility afforded through a higher power to weight ratio. People forget that Warrior was originally conceived as a vehicle with a 750hp engine and chobham armour but was scaled back to what it became on cost grounds.In the proposed but unfulfilled concept the Warrior would still have had less engine power and less armour than ASCOD-SV. ASCOD-SV will be the best protected and probably best sensor equipped force recon vehicle (as opposed to Warrior which is an IFV) in the world when/if it is procured and will form the basis of a family of vehicles.
I am not a GD employee I just know what I am talking about.
please can we remember that FRES SV has a CTA cannon firing CTA ammunition which will be a world first when operational and not focus on the chuffing tracks
what we should ponder is what the french who are in charge of developing new CTA rounds will do and if they will adopt CTA onto their vehicles and how we progress to airburst rounds etc..
its the possible types of ammo that CTA can bring that should be the real FRES SV story not whether it looks or sounds like a warrior
yes its a tracked vehicle, so it looks like the others, but does it fight like the others ????
v good point “what the french who are in charge of developing new CTA rounds will do and if they will adopt CTA onto their vehicles and how we progress to airburst rounds etc..”
– getting on par with the much more bulky Bofors that has
— proximity fuse
— airburst with “good” scatter pattern
— not sure how the two would compare in armour piercing
The CTA is an excellent weapon in its own right but it is only one part of the FRES-SV package.
bob
Ok so it’s got more armour, bigger better gun. With a full ‘intigration package’ (Posh sales talk for radios digital links and video feeds).
All good.
but
It will be bigger, Heavier, still based on a 30 year old design. all not good.
It is simply a change in the weight class of opperated vehicle, together with intigration of 30 years development of electronics, not the second comming.
AND
Strap on all the dodas and bells and whistles we have a vehicle which is 3 metres wide, (Officialy a wide load), 6 metres long weighs near the upper limit for road vehicles in europe, and thus is restricted to A road Bridges in many developed nations. Not Good for a reconasence vehicle.
EG
If it wanted to reconoiter from Casrlisle to Gretna Green it can only reconioter Via the M6!
NONE of the above is revolutionary enough to make it worth the years of effort and stupid development costs.
Whatever engine it has will be a development of existing engines, transmission will be off the shelf ( like RENK), tracks will still be steel pin designs), its not a magnetic levatating hover ship or an Imperial Walker. CTA (Which I like very much) has been a functioning weapoins system for at least 5 years.
So 2 cheers; but why so long and sofaking expensive?
Got some questions, anyone got figures on: –
When is this thing going to get into service?
In what numbers are the diamond crusted unobtainium hulls going to hit the streets?
Whats the unit cost going to be?
My guess is in reality it when eventually in service will spend most of it’s life like CVRT being deployed as infantry support and ‘light tank’ UN peace keeping/enforcing roles.
I certainly hope so “My guess is in reality it when eventually in service will spend most of it’s life like CVRT being deployed as infantry support and ‘light tank’ UN peace keeping/enforcing roles.”
– but one has to prepare for the war that one cannot afford to lose ( at least have the force structure and equipment from where to ramp up in numbers)
“Warrior would still have had less engine power and less armour than ASCOD-SV. ASCOD-SV will be the best protected and probably best sensor equipped force recon vehicle (as opposed to Warrior which is an IFV) in the world when/if it is procured and will form the basis of a family of vehicles.”
Sorry, Bob, you seem to have missed the point. ASCOD is basically a, marginally larger, steel hulled Warrior. It’s an MICV. ASCOD-SV doesn’t exist but, should it ever exist, will be, basically, a marginally larger, steel hulled Warrior with a newer engine, gearbox and stiffer torsion bars. It’s base protection is not claimed to protect against anything greater than a 14.5mm HMG round. It may turn out to be a good vehicle; reliable and well protected but Warrior is already a good, reliable and well ptotected vehicle which could, if Bae hadn’t bought and then closed down Alvis and Vickers)have been upgraded in exactly the same way as ASCOD is. I Have no beef with ASCOD-SV as a vehicle. I do have serious problems with claims that it is a wonderful new, heavily armoured wonder wagon as it manifestly is not.
And the same goes for the proposed CV90 FRES-SV that lost out to ASCOD.
The French are in charge of developing new ammunition for the CTA cannon? Is it me or is there a problem here?
1) The French do not use said cannon, nor do they have any project that is committed to using the cannon.
2) The only country in the world that does use the cannon is… us.
3) The cannon is of unique design so the projectile could not be common with any other weapon system
To me, this boils down to the same situation we had with the RARDEN (except worse) in that we could not generate enough demand to develop new rounds for the RARDEN (despite being made in far greater numbers and being very similar to the 30x173mm round adopted by other armies). How are we going to generate the business case to develop all these wonderful ammunition natures anew for our unique cannon?
In the meantime, the US is spending about £500m for two design studies that may result in an IFV with a unit cost of £6m (although some estimates are as high as £8m). That’s before the development phase is accounted for.
Mr.fred, CTAI is developing the gun and ammo. This is a joint Anglo-French company set up by BAE and Nexter, which happens to be based in France.
We don’t use the CTA, and won’t until the updated Warrior gets into service.
Whether the FRES SV makes it is looking a little shakier, given that it was omitted from the provisional list of major projects issued a week or two ago. We’ll find out in a month or two when the result of the latest round of cuts is announced.
UK version of Chinese water torture “. We’ll find out in a month or two ”
– how many months does a 3-month review take (oops; the PM on hols, add one)
– is it not really the PR11 that did not conclude, something has to come out, before the next PR is knocking on the door
Mike W – it all comes down to two things – firstly the MoD not wanting to suggest that CVR(T) had any life left in it by doing a “visible” upgrade (to cause any confusion with FRES) and secondly that the Stormer hulls probably wouldn’t have had the necessary Mine Blast Protection.
Bob – do you work in DE&S? The issue I have with FRES is that we are paying a huge sum for these vehicles but getting comparatively pedestrian solutions. The Future Protected Vehicle studies which the MoD undertook with BAES and Thales which you can find online, have already identified many technological opportunities – which would have justified the price. My concern is that the MoD will not be able to adopt any of these until the 2030 timeframe, with a mid life upgrade for FRES.
This “the Stormer hulls probably wouldn’t have had the necessary Mine Blast Protection” is the bit I would be interested to find out about
– if there is no “edge” in the construction on this point, Stormer should have been the choice for the chassis
Pete Arundel,
You have no understanding of the scale of work going into the FRES-SV programme. For a star more armour and superior firepower (with superior sensors an systems integration) are fairly standard armoured vehicle benchmarks. The vehicle will also integrate considerably greater mine protection. So what if it is big? So is you beloved Warrior. Also, FRES-SCOUT is NOT an MICV, it will not carry infantry and is thus a recce vehicle in the mould of Scimitar.
Just because the concept seems pedestrian to an armchair general it does not mean that the detail design is. The turret, main gun, engine and transmission are all new and far and away the best available on the market- far superior to the Warrior.
“FRES-SCOUT is NOT an MICV,”
Never said it was.
Read my reply again.
Carefully.
“engine and transmission are all new”
No they’re not! The engine is an uprated version of the same MTU lump as already fitted to the Ulan in Austrian service (where it is rated at 720hp)
“just because the concept seems pedestrian to an armchair general”
Careful, Bob, you have no idea what I do for a living . . . and it IS pedestrian. Pedestrian to the point of the basic vehicle being obselescent. Improived mine protection? With bloody great torsion bars running across the hull floor? Do me a favour. It’s increased mine protection is purely increased mass in comparison to the vehicle it replaces.
Missed this on, Bob
“You have no understanding of the scale of work going into the FRES-SV programme.”
So you do? Just what IS your job?
You do keep popping up and telling us how great FRES-SV is.
In fact I can’t remember you commenting on any other subject . . .
Bob
I’m certainly Armchair (not much of a general).
But I an sorry there are a from the published
‘information’ there are a large number of terms: –
Systems intigration
Superior sensors
Wepons systems
Capability leap
Etc that each smack of 10 points in bullshit bingo, The kind I get from the IT Snake oil salesmen who pester me all the time.
What does system intigration actually mean,?
Intigrated with what?
What is a weapons System?
Superior sensors, Superior to what?
What kind of sensors?
Capability leap? Whats that in feet and inches?
Sorry to sound too sarcastic, but there is the whiff of the usual
‘Don’t you trouble your little head about it tax payer, leave it to the ‘experts’ there’s a good chap’.
To the uninitiated, it looks like we have spent hndreds of million pounds for 3/5ths of bugger all so far; and are now getting ripped off for warmed over 30 year old designs, with modern systems bolted on and in. Maybe carefully and ergonomicaly bolted on and in.
As has been noted the displayed ‘prototypes’ look like second hand kit.
But this is not Puma, or any other more modern design. The basic systems already exist and are in service. Double hulling, V huilling etc are not engineering rocket science in particular as there is a large amount of engineering info on IED and Mine protection in the public domain. Various companies do bolt on anti tank missile passive armour.
FRES SV will NOT be invulnerable to IED, it will not be THAT superior (even if it goes to plan), to the other armies systems. Indeed much of it’s systems will be on sale to anyone who wants to buy it.
‘You have no understanding of the scale of work going into the FRES-SV programme’.
You bet your ever lovin arse I don’t.
Cos whats published smacks of it being: –
‘ An intigrated, Single man portable, manually opperated, unpowered, variable angle, readily deployable, Multi terrain relocation implimant Mk 1’
Or as we call it ‘a spade’
@jonesy
“secondly that the Stormer hulls probably wouldn’t have had the necessary Mine Blast Protection.”
You are almost certainly right about that and it’s a point that I forgot. However, isn’t the implication then that the new hybrid Scimitar/Spartan vehicle WILL have such protection? That in turn means that the new vehicle will almost certainly be new build, as the old Spartan does not have the kind of mine protection we are talking about (V-shaped hull, etc.).
@Bob
FRES SV was dead years ago, everyone who knows armour knows this, even the MOD was putting out the design call for its replacement before a single contract was signed.
Dead in what sense, Grey?
To which replacements do you refer?
The firepower of FRES SV with the new 40 CTA will be exactly the same as Warrior will have after the WCSP upgrade (which unlike FRES SV is in the provisional list of major projects to go ahead).
There is no fundamental difference in technology (or size) between the Warrior and the FRES SV vehicles. The main difference between the upgraded Warrior and the FRES SV seems to be that the FRES has extra sensor systems for the recce role, and is presumably fitted out with workstations for this rather than seats for infantry. I can see no reason why the sensor systems and workstations could not be accommodated in the upgraded Warrior.
Using some Warriors for recce was not an option in the original plans because there weren’t enough spare ones. However, by the time the army has finished downsizing I suspect that surplus Warriors will be filling up vehicle parks…
RE ” FRES has extra sensor systems for the recce role, and is presumably fitted out with workstations for this rather than seats for infantry. I can see no reason why the sensor systems and workstations could not be accommodated in the upgraded Warrior”
-I have never managed to figure out what the new electronic architecture (part of the Warrior upgrade program, I understand the “base” upgrade and then some (2/3?) also get the new turret/ gun) actually brings to the party
– surely power required in a recce version is much more (even when not moving for a day or two) than otherwise, but in my books that is a physical feature – not part of the “electronics architecture”
Mike W – you’ve just got to look at the video, it’s clearly not v shaped and thus I would guess relies on modern alloys and better assembly techniques, along with I hope seats and internal systems to mitigate blast transfer to the occupants. Clearly this keeps time and costs down by allowing re-use of existing running gear etc. Just hope this quick fix works and provides breathing space while the recce capabilities are resolved.
“it’s clearly not v shaped ”
– I was hoping that the extra internal height, with unchanged turret & main functions, would allow for some kind of internal floor construction
I think that the GVA defence standard may interest those who wish to know what an electronic architecture is.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/standards/defstans/23/009/00000100.pdf
Thanks for that mr Fred, agree, GVA is very impressive and such agood idea, not sure why we aven’t done it before but in the context of FRES, its hardly new is it. The leg work has already been done.
@Grey
“FRES SV was dead years ago, everyone who knows armour knows this, even the MOD was putting out the design call for its replacement before a single contract was signed.”
Yes, I would like to repeat Mr. Fred’s question to you: “Dead in what sense, Grey?
To which replacements do you refer?”
If you are by any chance referring to the Scimitar/Spartan hybrid, then, if it is not to be new-build, I fail to see how it can possibly be any long-term solution to the recce problem. If it is not to be new-build, then we shall have a vehicle so aptly described by Monty: “Turret = old and outdated without 40 mm CTA cannon. Chassis = old and worn out.” Moreover, the highest number I have seen quoted for any likely order is approx. 200 and we would need many more than that. (See below). Still, maybe you were not referring to that vehicle.
@Monty
In connection with your point: “I saw no mention of FRES SV in the latest round of approved funding, but Warrior Upgrade was included. FRES SV may be killed off and Warrior will do its job.”
First, other items were mentioned in the SDSR but not in the latest round of approved funding: e.g. the Fire Shadow loitering munition weapon. The assumption among many experts is that that system will start to enter service later this year. Another is Terrier, which is scheduled to enter service next year, I believe. So if your theory does not hold good for those, it might not for FRES SV either!
Second, if FRES SV is “killed off”, I cannot see the numbers stacking up. First of all you are going to need approximately 5 x 60 = 300 Warriors for the Armoured Infantry battalions, then approx. 5 x 80 = 400 Warriors as replacements for the CVR(T)s (all variants) in the Formation Reconnaissance regiments. That is 700 already and I have not included the CVR(T)s needed in the Armoured regiments (another 5 x ,say, 15 = 75 . Total so far = 775. And won’t some of those Warriors be needed to replace some of the Bulldog/432s that will be going? And how many Warriors are left overall in the British Army? And not all of those are to be upgraded (40 mm cannon, etc.). I think I have exceeded the total figure already. No, I think we shall certainly need a new vehicle. I just hope it is not the Scimitar/Spartan hybrid for all our recce requirements. That can fill a temporary niche role with light formations such 16 AA and 3 Commando Brigades but nothing more.
@jonesy
“you’ve just got to look at the video, it’s clearly not v shaped”
Yes, I accept that. I just hope that it’s got all the other protective measures you mention. On an earlier point of yours:
“The FRES vehicle is derived from the Ascod, which is the same vintage as Warrior. It is to all intents rather conventional in design terms with little real innovation…”
Surely one of the points about the vehicle is that, if it is “new manufacture”, then the whole of the vehicle will have new components that will reach obsolescence much later than many of those in the Warrior, which were manufactured 25 years ago. It might be the same kind of vehicle, but it will be a newer vehicle, bearing much the same relationship to the Warrior as that vehicle now bears to the FV432. I really don’t know why so many of you have been opposed to Bob’s views about the FRES SV.
The ASCOD-UV hate here is unjustifiable and ill-informed, the vehicle appears to be being criticised for not being some form of hover tank. The reality is that it combines the most modern automotive, firepower and sensor components into a hull that is being designed from the outset to incorporate the latest protection requirements. The idea that you could upgrade a Warrior and get the same capabilities is absurd, that vehicle is 30 years old (and in design terms was scaled back from what was originally desired before it even entered production) and is already overloaded by a considerable margin. ASCOD-SV will have superior mobility and protection to the Warrior. In addition FRES-SV will specially designed appliqué armour sections that can be installed and removed with ease rather than the awkward UOR lash ups currently on Warrior.
Sure ASCOD-SV is still essentially a diesel powered box- so were the tanks that went into action on the Somme, but it benefits from 30 years of development in the automotive industry (more power dense/fuel efficient engines, better transmission etc) and developments in protection, compared to Warrior which was already a compromise when it went into production 30 years ago. I know some people here have poured praise on the Puma- firstly such praise is misplaced, it is not a happy programme and is also a very expensive programme; however ASCOD-SV will leverage its transmission and the Rheinmettal turret is new to the market and clearly takes design and engineering experience from the Puma turret. The engine going into ASCOD-SV (805hp compared to 550hp for Warrior) is the same as used in the Boxer. ASCOD-SV is just as modern as Puma and saying otherwise just shows how little people know about its supply chain. So to be clear ASCOD-SV uses the Puma Transmission, the Boxer engine, a brand new design Rheinmettal turret, it will have the latest Thales sights (based on Catherine MP thermal imagers), the vehicle is being designed for very comprehensive mine protection (a V hull is not the only way to defeat an IED), even the original ASCOD suspension is being changed. What more do you want?
UK Armoured Vehicles policy has been catastrophic, the decision of the Labour government to deconstruct the UK armoured vehicles industry was insane and has cost lives, the fact that it has taken this long to acquire new vehicles is highly incompetent and should have costed careers but ASCOD-SV will combine all the best armoured vehicle components currently on the market in a package that is both world beating and not overly technologically challenging.
Finally, what people here also do not seem to understand is that the recce vehicle is only one variant, FRES-SV is about providing a base platform for a wide range of vehicle types including APC’s recovery vehicles and others. The new automotive components (with high power to weight ratio), and the wide turret ring will make it an excellent base platform, the current plans still call for hundreds of vehicles over multiple variants.
FRES SV is also going to be the first-ever UK armoured vehicle with underarmor laser-designation of targets.
Which could be totally awesome if the Overwatch FRES SV variant (RECCE Block 3 category of vehicles) survives and is pursued.
A missile launcher to replace Swingfire and provide long reach.
FRES Scout going ahead scouting and designing targets, and missiles (Brimstone DM? LMM? Both?) coming from the rear echelons to strike them from above. Now that would be real effective.
Bob do you ever actually READ what other people post? You certainly don’t seem to post anything that has any relevence to the postings of others.
“the vehicle appears to be being criticised for not being some form of hover tank.”
No it isn’t. It’s being criticised for being a late eighties design which first moved in 1992. It took another ten years for it to enter service with the Spanish and Austrians. It’s design that is comparable in most respects to the Warriors which are already in service with the british army.
“it combines the most modern automotive, firepower and sensor components”
No it doesn’t. It uses the same (although uprated) engine as the ASCOD in service with the Austrians. The Transmission is new, I’ll give you that one but the firepower will be identical to the upgraded Warrior. As for sensors, take the dismounts from a warrior and you have Big Space to put your electronics into – just like an ASCOD.
“a hull that is being designed from the outset to incorporate the latest protection requirements.”
A hull designed 25 years ago and one that will be armoured, acording to the GD website, to the SAME BASIC STANDARD AS A WARRIOR i.e. it’ll keep out 14.5mm AP rounds over the frontal arc and 7.62 over the rest of the vehicle.
“The idea that you could upgrade a Warrior and get the same capabilities is absurd”
. . . but you can upgrade an ASCOD?
“ASCOD-SV will have superior mobility and protection to the Warrior”
Mobility, yes, but protection will be the same until you slap a load of applique on the outside. Now how about we stick an MTU deisel and a Renk transmission in one of the multiplicity of Warrior hulls which are going to be made redundant after the next round of cuts?
“In addition FRES-SV will specially designed appliqué armour sections that can be installed and removed with ease rather than the awkward UOR lash ups currently on Warrior.”
LOL! Why not build some pretty armour for warrior? It’s got to be cheaper than buying ASCOD-SV
“ASCOD-SV is just as modern as Puma”
No it’s not. As I have just pointed out (not that I think the Puma would be a good choice for a scout either).
“So to be clear ASCOD-SV uses the Puma transmission, the Boxer engine”
It uses the same basic engine that it has always used while in service with the Austrians so it would be more hionest to say that boxer uses the SAME ENGINE AS ASCOD.
“a brand new design Rheinmettal turret”
Really? A brand new turret? Wow. There’s a brand new turret on Warrior now too, did you know that?
“it will have the latest Thales sights (based on Catherine MP thermal imagers)”
Which are custom made to ONLY fit in our new Rheinmettal turret, right?
“the vehicle is being designed for very comprehensive mine protection (a V hull is not the only way to defeat an IED)”
Yeah, with transverse torsion bars for suspension which are probably the worst possible suspension design if you want added mine protection.
“even the original ASCOD suspension is being changed.”
Better make those torsion bars stiffer if you’ve got to hold a potential 42 tons up instead of 28.
“What more do you want?”
I want better. A properly designed scout vehicle rather than a warmed over late eighties MICV. I want a decent base armour package, externally mounted, sacrificial hydragas suspension to not only lower the profile but increase the mine protection and be easily adjustable depending upon the weight of the vehicle – and those are just the simple things without even going near band tracks and hybriid electric drives.
“UK Armoured Vehicles policy has been catastrophic, the decision of the Labour government to deconstruct the UK armoured vehicles industry was insane”
Agree completely with all of that, Bob.
“ASCOD-SV will combine all the best armoured vehicle components currently on the market in a package that is both world beating and not overly technologically challenging.”
Disagree with a lot of that! (except the technologically challenging bit. The basic hull is already obsolescent)
“Finally, what people here also do not seem to understand is that the recce vehicle is only one variant”
But we do. And its rather the point. Pay a vast amount of money for APC’s and recovery vehicles that are based on an obsolescent hull? Damn it the AS90 hull is more advanced than ASCOD-SV!
“The new automotive components (with high power to weight ratio), and the wide turret ring will make it an excellent base platform”
It’ll be a platform comparable to a Warrior with a modern drive train It’ll be heavier and carry applique armour that is more effective (and so it should be after 25 years of development) but then so would a Warrior if it had the drivetrain upgrades that have been made to ASCOD.
You seem to think the scorn poured on ASCOD-SV and it’s comparison to Warrior is due to ignorance. It isn’t. TD contributors are probably as well informed as anyone outside GDUK and the MoD can be and the information and press releases from GDUK portray a vehicle that is astonishingly average in all respects except it’s ability to have ever large sheets of external armour hung off it.
BOB
Its not ASCOD hate, It’s Bullshit hate
And it’s not hate do not take natural scepticism for irrational hate lets look at a few things.
1) You started the whole ‘it’s vastly suppperior to everything else’ school. All that has happened is you have been asked to justify some of that implication.
Your post above goes someway to doing that, remeber I said 2 cheers for it, lukewarm praise is not hatred…
‘The idea that you could upgrade a Warrior and get the same capabilities is absurd,’
Never suggested that.
‘ASCOD-SV will have superior mobility and protection to the Warrior.
After 30 years it better have.
‘In addition FRES-SV will specially designed appliqué armour sections that can be installed and removed with ease rather than the awkward UOR lash ups currently on Warrior’
Again this is not rocket science, it happens already.
‘Sure ASCOD-SV is still essentially a diesel powered box- so were the tanks that went into action on the Somme’
Mk1 and subsiquent tanks had Petrol Engines.
Also it should be a peice of cake to incorperate perfectly streight forward mechanical advances,
‘However ASCOD-SV will leverage its transmission and the Rheinmettal turret is new to the market and clearly takes design and engineering experience from the Puma turret’.
So we are paying half a billion for something on which the Germans have already done most of the design for….
Ditto comments about engines and transmissions etc.
You do seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it!
In other words it will be superior to everyone elses.
on The other hand
‘So to be clear ASCOD-SV uses the Puma Transmission, the Boxer engine, a brand new design Rheinmettal turret, it will have the latest Thales sights (based on Catherine MP thermal imagers’
It’s using already developed components.
‘ASCOD-SV will combine all the best armoured vehicle components currently on the market in a package that is both world beating and not overly technologically challenging.’
So its a parts bin special (I exagerate for emphasis).
So whats my half a billion gone on. and and when can I get one and whats the unit cost going to be?
Rather like the Old carling Black Label adverts
It’s Good but it’s not that good.
The only person not reading here is Pete Arundel, ASCOD-SV is just as modern as Puma and it is pure ignorance to suggest otherwise- perhaps you would explain how it is not? And yes they are the best armoured vehicle components on the market- unless you can find some better ones? Perhaps you could also explain exactly how, in technical terms, how the highly evolved ASCOD chassis will be less advanced than a Puma chassis- just shouting ‘because it is old!!!’ does not count. And by the way, the ASCOD chassis is being upgraded for ASCOD-SV, how do you think it is getting to a stretch 42 tonne GVW?
If you wanted to make Warrior as advanced as ASCOD-SV you would need a new engine, new transmission, new armour, the new turret, the new data network, improved electricity generation capability, and then a modified chassis to take all the weight- basically a new vehicle. And then you would still have to procure several hundred new platforms to provide all the other roles required of the FRES-SV base platform. ASCOD-SV has increased mine protection- it was a key programme requirement and will have much better protection than any Warrior. ASCOD-SV has already completed a round of MoD blast tests.
IXION
Why should it not use developed components? Bolting parts together and making them work together costs money, especially when even the base platform is being far more than “warmed over” (to quote the ill-informed and deliberately misleading phrase of Pete Arundel). If you think you can get the capability offered by ASCOD-SV cheaper then you are seriously mistaken.
I should say, Bob, that from my point of view the problem isn’t that ASCOD-SV is a bad vehicle as such, just that it’s not a great vehicle for the amount of money being spent and the ludicrous claims made by some about it’s proponents – yourself included.
Ascod/Scout is costing too much to develop & will weigh too much to deploy.
The Panhard Sphinx would do the job just as well & is only 17 tons. It was designed to the latest IED/ballistic protection standards.
I would like to see it licence built in the UK.
Pete Arundel,
Perhaps you could explain how it is costing too much then, rather than just saying that it is? And what ludicrous claims? You have been unable to disprove any claims yet.
John Hartley,
Same question to you as to Pete Arundel, also:
1) Panhard Sphinx only exists as a mockup and will not provide the multitude of variants that the ASCOD-SV will whilst a tracked platform will provide ASCOD-SV with superior mobility.
2) Weigh too much to deploy? How on earth do you work that out? Most armoured vehicles are taken into theatre by ship and then by land, it is very rare for them to be flown in (Afghanistan being almost unique) and Challenger (plus the associated engineering etc vehicles) and AS90, both of which are heavier, have been deployed to far flung combat zones just fine. Furthermore, the 42 tonne stretch weight is just that, maximum potential GCW for the chassis, most of the variants will spend most of their lives considerably below that weight.
Bob
For the bulk of the British deployment in Afghanistan there has been little UK armour & far too many light LandRovers. Only after much criticism have Warriors been finally deployed.
Given the cost & delay, the proposed Ascod variants are unlikely to survive the Treasury.
The RAF has only 7 C-17s, so new armour needs to be deployable by A400M. Ascod/Scout can just, but there is little room for weight growth. Why spend money on a lardbucket that is hard to move?
“ASCOD-SV is just as modern as Puma and it is pure ignorance to suggest otherwise- perhaps you would explain how it is not”
I just did. Or are you claiming that ASCOD-SV isn’t actually an ASCOD at all?
“Perhaps you could also explain exactly how, in technical terms, how the highly evolved ASCOD chassis will be less advanced than a Puma chassis- just shouting ‘because it is old!!!’ does not count”
I haven’t advocated Puma in any way shape or form. I think Puma’s pretty pedestrian too as it’s only outstanding feature is it’s weight.
“And yes they are the best armoured vehicle components on the market- unless you can find some better ones? ”
Suspension-wise I certainly can. Engine and transmission I have no problem with except that, as the belgians proved 30 years ago, a hybrid electric transmission would be better.
“And by the way, the ASCOD chassis is being upgraded for ASCOD-SV, how do you think it is getting to a stretch 42 tonne GVW?”
Stiffer torsion bars and new drivetrain. If it’s a new hull then it’s not an ASCOD, is it?
“if you wanted to make Warrior as advanced as ASCOD-SV you would need a new engine, new transmission, new armour, the new turret, the new data network, improved electricity generation capability, and then a modified chassis to take all the weight- basically a new vehicle”
Errr . . . isn’t that what you’re claiming has been done for ASCOD-SV? You have just proved my whole point. ASCOD-SV is, basically, an austro-spanish, upgraded Warrior.
Can’t you get this into your stubborn brain, Bob, it’s not ASCOD-SV that is the problem, as such. A CV90, Puma, Bionix or any other modified MICV would have been just as lacklustre. It’s not even GDUK’s fault since they produced the polished turd that is ASCOD-SV in responce to a specification drawn up by the MoD.
Are you, by the way, claiming some sort of inside knowledge on ASCOD-SV? You are most vehement in you defence of it in a way I have only ever seen before when Bell-Boeing employees have been defending the V-22 against internet forum criticism.
John Hartley,
I repeat: It is very rare for armoured vehicles to be deployed by air- Afghanistan being something of an exception, most of the time they are deployed by land and/or ship. Again, deploying the heavier Challenger 2 and AS90 to Iraq was perfectly possible as well as into Germany. It is not a “lard bucket that is hard to move”. As I have said already ASCOD-SV will be much lighter than the 42 tonne maximum potential GVW of the chassis and the armour package will be modular so if the need for airlifting does ever arise it will be entirely possible.
Pete Arundel,
ASCOD-SV is being built from new, Warriors would have to be rebuilt- a completely different prospect.
You have not proved anything, just shouted a lot. The fact that you think Puma is pedestrian suggests that you have been playing too many computer games. Hybrid Electric has its own basket of problems and has been rejected by virtually everybody except the US Army to date. The development of anything more advanced would be completely unaffordable and unnecessary ASCOD-SV is certainly not a polished turd and the end result will be one of the best armoured fighting vehicles in the world. An upgrade it is not, a major evolution it is. Warrior was always a horrid compromise having a ridiculous unstabilised gun, it never got the armour package originally wanted and the engine design is ancient. Even if the UK was only acquiring Ulan/ASCOD it would still be getting a design 10 years younger and a generation ahead of the Warrior, but it is actually getting something a whole lot better.
I have never claimed to have inside knowledge of the ASCOD-SV, that you claimed I did say that is testament to the poor quality of your character.
BOB
OK OK it the sun shines out it’s exhaust pipe, whatever.
Its still stupidly expensive
Starting off with Mike W’s point
“cannot see the numbers stacking up. First of all you are going to need approximately 5 x 60 = 300 Warriors for the Armoured Infantry battalions, then approx. 5 x 80 = 400 Warriors as replacements for the CVR(T)s (all variants) in the Formation Reconnaissance regiments. That is 700 already and I have not included the CVR(T)s needed in the Armoured regiments (another 5 x ,say, 15 = 75 . Total so far = 775. And won’t some of those Warriors be needed to replace some of the Bulldog/432s that will be going? ”
Going back to my own post on Future of the the Army 04 – Structures:
QUOTE the MRB remains as nebulous as ever…each one would include the “hard fist” of an armoured battle group:
1. capable of traversing 300 km with internal support, and then battle ready, even for offensive operations
2. being about 1900 in overall strength, ie. slightly bigger than an infantry-centric BG (a la EU)
3. HQ elements 30 +230, the latter for signals , medical and a recce coy
4. MBT element of 38, plus another ten Scouts in standard, mast and protected mobility configurations
5. An AI element of about the same number of IFVs (improved Warriors that is to be) as under “4″ END QUOTE
So:
300 Warriors for the AI 5 bn’s (make that 340 for 10 % in workshops, or deeper maintenance)
– double counting of these in Mike’s and in my numbers, 245 in mine so less than a hundred under the “floated” MoD intended number (with turrets)
Add 50% on top of that with no gun upgrade but keeping the specialist versions not only going, but upgraded (eg. RA 544 edition)
All Warriors gone then! As per Mike W figures 400 more to keep FRR’s going
=> Question
– the first 50 to 75 definitely needed
– is it not better to reconfigure the FRR’s and then see how many more needed for that (recognising that we are ordering a family, not just the Scouts)
IXION,
So say how it is stupidly expensive? As a reference point, the five Puma prototype vehicles came in at 350 million Euros (that does not include the original 2002 development contract and of course needs inflating + remember that the UK is getting seven prototypes) and the production contract was valued at 3.1 billion Euros in 2009. The US has just released the first round of GCV contracts, roughly $440 million each and they expect to spend $7.6 billion on research and development in total for the programme, the target production unit cost was set at $10.5 million maximum and is already being estimated at $13 million. Depending on who you believe a Mastiff/Ridgeback comes in at as much as £1 million by the time everyone has finished with it and even a Foxhound does not come is £900,000 and a Warthog over a million. Modern armoured vehicles are expensive.
Bob
Look at the attacks in Pakistan on NATO supply ground columns to Afghanistan.
If the enemy gives us enough time & attacks near an allied port, then armour can go by sea. If the enemy is an unsporting cad that attacks without warning deep inland, then armour needs to be light enough to go by air.
Bob, I know that warrior isn’t in production. Warrior is just a baseline example; a comparison.
ASCOD-SV is based on an old hull
It’s base armour is no better than a Warrior or any other MICV
ASCOD-SV uses off-the-shelf engine and transmission. The engine is the latest version of the engine that is already fitted in the Austrian Army’s ASCOD (Ulan) vehicles. The primary armament is already fitted in the new turret that’s going to be fitted to Warrior.
All this off the shelf kit fitted into a hull that already exists and the cost for 7 prototypes is half a billion pounds. Boy did GD see the MoD coming!
If, by the way, new build warriors were available would you still chose ASCOD? A new build, upgraded Warrior would be pretty much the same as ASCOD-SV – which is the whole point. A moot point, of course, since Alvis and Vickers no longer exist.
@Bob
Your opponents seem to be conceding either directly or by implication, some areas in which the Ascod FRES SV is superior to the Warrior:
e.g “The Transmission is new, I’ll give you that one”
“ASCOD-SV will have superior mobility and
protection to the Warrior.
Mobility, yes,”
So transmission and mobility are admitted to be superior. Then there is your own point, Bob, about the engine power: ASCOD – 805hp compared to 550hp for Warrior. With that increase in hp it should be able to take much heavier and more effective appliqué armour sections, so protection too should be superior. So is some kind of pattern beginning to emerge? And is manufacturing new-build ASCODs with modern components a better bet than modernizing a much older vehicle like the Warrior? Re-furbishing that vehicle will still only provide one which will reach block obsolescence many years before its more modern rival.
Sorry for my poor formulation, this part was about (immediate) ASCOD SV order numbers:
“All Warriors gone then! As per Mike W figures 400 more to keep FRR’s going
=> Question
– the first 50 to 75 definitely needed
– is it not better to reconfigure the FRR’s and then see how many more needed for that (recognising that we are ordering a family, not just the Scouts)”
… and I am not saying 400+75, but to think, reconfigure (maybe some reuse, too) and then order (including the mix between versions)
John Hartley,
As I have already said twice before, Afghanistan is very much an exception and ASCOD-SV is not going to be as heavy as the 42 tonne chassis stretch GVW limit suggests. If one is serious about airlifting a usable number of vehicles then the UK would have to acquire nothing but Jackels. Both the Challenger and AS90 (both heavier than the ASCOD-SV) have been successfully deployed overseas multiple times and the Warrior has recently been deployed successfully in Afghanistan.
Pete Arundel,
The mine protection of the ASCOD-SV will be far in advance of the Warrior as will its ability to take appliqué armour (a design feature rather than a UOR lash up), so what if it uses off-the-shelf kit? All that kit is a generation if not more ahead of that on the Warrior. £500 million may sound like a lot, but as I outlined above, in armoured vehicle terms it is really not that shocking at all. Not only have all the various systems and components got to be integrated, detail design performed etc but the various hull improvements have to be made.
“If, by the way, new build warriors were available would you still chose ASCOD?”
An excellent question. The British Army announced years ago that it intended to procure thousands of new armoured vehicles through to 2035 and beyond (FRES-SV/UV to 2035 and then heavy armour replacement), in doing so it made the UK one of the highest value armoured vehicle markets in the world. Then the MoD declared through the Defence Industrial Strategy that the UK did not need the ability to design and build armoured vehicles from scratch. This is possibly one of the worst policy decisions ever made in UK defence procurement, it defies any logic and is why it took the UK so long to respond credibly to the IED threat (compare with the US MRAP effort) and is why the Army has been scratching around looking for technical solutions from the motor-sport industry. In short, I absolutely believe that the UK should have its own indigenous armoured vehicles industry. Whether it was a highly evolved Warrior (check out Warrior 2000 as offered to Switzerland) or a clean sheet British design is of little consequence. ASCOD-SV is the best that can be expected following the catastrophic DIS decision, at least the design authority and IP will remain in the UK along with most of the final assembly.
Mike W,
Exactly. Not to mention there are not enough Warriors in existence to provide all the platforms required for the FRES-SV programme.
@Pete Arundel
“If, by the way, new build Warriors were available would you still chose ASCOD? A new build, upgraded Warrior would be pretty much the same as ASCOD-SV – which is the whole point”
With due respect, Pete, that is not “the whole point”. The “whole point” is that such a vehicle (a new-build Warrior) is not available. If it were, I’d have to think again but the production lines have been dismantled and will not return. The point is that the present Warriors are full of 25-year-old components and they will wear out much sooner than those in a new vehicle. Even if you installed a modern engine,transmision, etc. they would still be much older vehicles and we should pay for that in the future.
By the way, this present discussion is by far the best informed and most interesting I have read for a long time.
@acc’
I shall have have a think about your points and numbers before I answer.
Bob, what I and others have been at pains to point out is that ASCOD-SV is nothing special. In respect to it’s suspension I maintain that, for the British Army, it’s a retrograde step.
This statement from you is the crux of all that I am arguing against; “The reality is that it combines the most modern automotive, firepower and sensor components into a hull that is being designed from the outset to incorporate the latest protection requirements. The idea that you could upgrade a Warrior and get the same capabilities is absurd, that vehicle is 30 years old”
The basic ASCOD vehicle that ASCOD-SV is based upon is no better than Warrior. ASCOD-SV will use, basically the same engine as the original ASCOD. To say that upgrading Warrior in the same fashion that you say ASCOD is being upgraded ‘is absurd’ is, well absurd. The whole FRES program is a farce and will, even if ASCOD-SV is adopted (which I doubt) will result in the British Army getting a vehicle which will be a very poor scout vehicle(too tall, too heavy)but probably adequate as an APC.
Bob
The world & his wife seems to be building new 7.5 to 22 ton IED resistant armoured vehicles, that are easy to deploy, so why are we sticking with a heavy, difficult to deploy option?
There are rumours of murky deals with Ascod. Have no idea if they are true, but we could do with some independent transparancy on how Ascod was selected & if there are better choices out there.
RE “have a think about your points and numbers before I answer”
– turreted Warriors go down in number by abt a hundred, because of reorg
– that number is absorbed in the otherwise ‘ to be upgraded’ Warriors, out of the usable fleet (unknown as a total)
– all recce (within armoured formations or in FRR’s) is carried out by ‘non-Warrior’ platforms; equally, not all of these will be FRES Scouts
Just to clarify how I got to my numbers; and the residual requirement (functional; not just numbers)
Sorry, Mike, it is the point; that point being that for a supposedly new vehicle being procured 30 years after Warrior it shows very little in the way of technical improvement and, as a scout vehicle, is much too big and much too heavy.
Pete,
Except it is special compared to everything else currently in service with the British Army and with most other militaries around the world, it may not be a hybrid drive hover tank armed with lasers but is the best that the global armoured vehicles industry currently has to offer without a very expensive R&D effort. ASCOD is much better than a Warrior, Warrior’s armament is a joke (an unstabilised gun using ammunition clips) and its power pack is a generation older (not as power dense). Its baseline protection was not even what was wanted in 1980 let alone today. And that is just ASCOD, ASCOD-SV takes this superiority even further. As I have already stated, making a Warrior as capable as an ASCOD-SV would involve stripping it down to its base chassis, strengthening that chassis, designing a whole new armour package, replacing all the automotive components, rearranging the internal layout (fuel tanks electronics etc) on top of the new turret. In essence a new vehicle. And that still leaves the problem of there not being enough Warriors in existence to provide enough platforms for all the roles required under FRES-SV. Warrior can not be FRES-SV even if you can modify it into a less capable recce vehicle than the recce version of FRES-SV. ASCOD-SV is a massive technical improvement over Warrior, its power-pack, its transmission, its sensors, its armament, its protection, its data-network, all superior.
Why would it be poor as a scout vehicle? The US Army uses the Bradley in that role and it is a hulking beast size wise, weight is not as inhibiting as people like to think as long as the ground pressure is kept low and power to weight ratio kept high (with 805 hp it should be) so there is absolutely no reason to think it will be a poor scout vehicle. Furthermore the combat weight of ASCOD-SV will be less than the 42 tonne maximum chassis GVW. Also, within the multirole brigades it will be supported by a light recce vehicle such as the Jackal or Foxhound.
John Hartley,
Really? Check Puma, Boxer and GCV, certainly not 22 tons and as I have already said ASCOD-SV will not be difficult to deploy, once again please see the successful deployment of Warrior, Challenger and AS90.
Sorry, Bob, I feel that I am banging my head against a wall. We keep arguing round in circles. I obviously don’t understand what point you are trying to make and you certainly have no clue about what I’m saying since you keep repeating the same things as if they in some way address what I’m saying.
A few corrections to some apparent misapprehensions:
Upgrading Warrior: the Warrior is being mildly upgraded already “Over 70 vehicles have been modified for the British Army by BAE Systems as part of an Urgent Operational Requirement. The tracked vehicles have been given around 30 new improvements under the Warrior Theatre Entry Standard (HERRICK) [TES (H)] programme worth around £40m, including:
• a flexible modular armour system that can be adapted to meet changing threats and reduce vehicle weight
• enhanced seating design and cushioning to further improve mine protection and comfort
• an improved driver vision system with an increase from one to three periscopes, providing a wider field of vision and a night-vision capability
• increased low-speed mobility and climbing performance, enabling the vehicle to tackle tough terrain and get closer to a target or destination
• motorsport-derived carbon fibre brakes, providing significantly reduced stopping distance
• improved air conditioning for troop comfort in hot and harsh environments
• wire cutters to protect the driver, commander and equipment on the vehicle from obstacles.”
But this is superficial compared with WCSP (Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme) which has several elements, including: WFLIP (Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Programme) to improve turrets and sensors, and add firepower; WMPS (Warrior Modular Protection System) to add a modular armoring system; WEEA (Warrior Enhanced Electronic Architecture) to add a fully integrated set of modern, expandable electronics and communications gear.
It is a red herring to keep comparing FRES SV with the baseline Warrior, since we already have the WCSP upgrades planned and ready to go. FRES SV therefore needs to be compared with WCSP, and it is frankly dishonest to argue otherwise and pretend that Warrior cannot have firepower to match FRES SV, or a modular armour system, or an integrated electronic architecture. It will have all of those under WCSP.
Warrior’s life expectancy: WCSP is intended to see Warrior through to 2035, and that isn’t necessarily the end of the story. AFVs are rather like “grandfather’s axe” – bits keep being replaced when they wear out. After all, FV432 was introduced in the 1960s and is still going strong and even being upgraded.
The number of spare Warriors to convert for the recce role: we simply don’t know that because we don’t know the final size of the armoured forces (including MICVs and recce vehicles) which will result from the latest round of cuts. Indications are that the heavy armour will be facing significant reductions so there could be a lot of surplus Warriors sitting around, and not so many FRES SV being acquired.
FRES SV as the basis for a whole family of future vehicles: actually the plan has been for the FRES SV to consist of reconnaissance, engineering and battlefield medical variants. The APC and other requirements are to be met by FRES UV, which is (or rather was) a wheeled 8×8 vehicle.
To sum up:
1. I do not know if it would be practical in terms of numbers to adapt surplus Warriors for the recce role – and neither does anyone else at the moment, because we don’t know the future numbers.
2. I also do not know for sure that WCSP would make the basis for a recce vehicle to match FRES SV, but I’ve read nothing in this thread so far to convince me that it couldn’t.
It may be that a recce WCSP might not match FRES SV in every respect – I don’t know (and evidently neither does anyone else here) – but that isn’t the point as I see it. The point is this: how much would upgrading surplus Warriors to do the recce role (what might be called “WCSP recce”) cost compared with acquiring FRES SV, in terms of both initial and maintenance costs, and to what extent could it do the recce job required?
Again, I don’t know the answer to those questions (and neither does anyone else here) but they are ones which should be asked and answered if the imminent round of cuts leaves lots of surplus Warriors and a reduced requirement for FRES SV.
Sorry Tony but you are wrong on a number of levels. The TES-H is a nasty lash-up of a variety different bits and pieces that simply avoid the bits that cannot be fixed, the same applies to the wider sustainability programme. I appreciate that your area of expertise is firepower but it is only one area of armoured vehicles design. The fundamentals of Warrior’s mobility can not be fixed without a new automotive train and the amour solution is nowhere near as effective as you made out nor can it be made so due to the requirement of Warrior to carry seven infantry troops in addition to its less powerful engine (less weight available for armour) and there is only a limited amount that can be done to enhance its mine protection, so even if you complete WCSP you are still left with a less protected and less mobile vehicle. I have said this here several times, to give a Warrior the same mobility, protection and firepower as ASCOD-SV would require stripping its downs to its chassis, replacing the entire automotive train, reorganising the internal layout and installing an entirely new protection package as well as the new vehicle electronic architecture and turret. Finally you make the same mistake as most others here in assuming that FRES-SV is just about providing recce vehicles, it is not, it is about providing a base platform for a whole family of vehicles and as I have said multiple times there are nowhere near enough Warriors in existence to provide the number of hulls required without a truly massive reduction in both UK heavy and medium armour forces.
Pete Arundel,
You just keep shouting the same ill-informed statements over and over again, “its too expensive”, “its nothing special” etc. Yet as I keep pointing out it is the best that the global armoured vehicles industry has to offer and simultaneously avoids a GCV level of R&D.
Thanks Tony, good to see all that information in one place.
Going back to the numbers, it would not make sense (?)to spend more money on those 70 TES H’s and anyway, if we get down to a training element only in A-stan by 2015, there will still need to be an OTH reserve force (as today)in Cyprus, for short-term handling of any serious trouble.
– I would leave them there (who knows what else will brew up closer to the shores of that island)
RA are also heavy users of Warriors, and would in fact like two to every fire control vehicle they have now. The reason is obvious: you do artillery and air from the same vehicle, which with satellite links and all other hi-tech is too cramped (supplying power has not been mentioned as a problem in trials, but the following things have:)
An armoured fire support team is able to operate
from a single vehicle [BUT:]
• In two vehicle configuration actual radio usage
increased by 25 per cent while perceived usage
increased by 106 per cent (read= true need?)
• Operating from a single vehicle, independent
sighting systems are required for the artillery and air controllers
• The advantages of two vehicles cannot be
maximised operating at battle group level(=too small a battle group)
• The fire support team require a mounted ability
to generate non line of sight target grids using
targeting software
• Ground to air radio must be integrated into the
BOWMAN vehicle communications harness (oh boy, that will cost?)
• A pan sight with GPS separated antennas and
inertial navigation system is able to generate
target grids to the accuracy required for precision munitions (so what’s the point of investing in the munitions if this kit does not get funded?)
• The ability to receive full motion video plays a
fundamental role in the provision of joint fires and should be enabled by WR514 platforms (Hellcats and Lynx 9As have the optics, but can they transmit?)
• Stowage capacity and hull-turret interface issues
These conclusions have been around since 2010 trials, and if funding go-ahead is secured
– I am sure the gun will be lost from the turret
– and, if the two vehicle option is chosen, the Warrior numbers available for other use further curtailed.
I believe Combat Engineers are also users and even a bridge-layer version is planned (as Terriers turned out unbelievably expensive and I think only 36 in all will be procured).
– I have no relevant source for this side of things, but maybe someone else knows
First off I believe the Fox turret were used to re-arm the Scorpions to create the Sabre, which didn’t seem to hang around that long due to a number of problems and force reductions.
Turning to FRES(SV), I just wish the whole FRES idea would be binned and it seems to have died a death already but the MoD is not willing to admit it.
Now Warrior. If the MoD/Army had been clever it would have used UOR funds to fast track a number of Warriors through the WCSP are urgent repacement fro the CVR(T). This would have got things moving and allowed any kinks to be ironed out. In addition it could give them a “Get out of Jail free”, card by allowing them to anounce the the WCSP platforms were a more affordable option to the ASCOD2 if they perfromed well in Afghanistan, and allow the former to proceed to the rest of the fleet and the latter to be cancelled.
“WE don’t have enough Warrior to replave the CVR(T)!” I hear you say, but in my reality we no longer need a MICV. Instead both the existing Armoured Infantry Regiments and Mechanised Infantry Regiments would be equipped with the Boxer in its various forms, though each regiment would have a “Recce” component of 6-8 vehicles as they do now with WCSP platforms instead of the current CVR(T).
Though the “WCSP Recce” would not carry an infantry section per see, it should retain the ability to carry 4-6 dismounts to increase flexibilty.
Finally Think Defence, could you provide me with an email address so I can send you the Orbat for the Medium Infantry Regiment I have developed and other units that could possibly form the FF2020 MRB. Cheers
Hi Bob,
What’s that “simultaneously avoids a GCV level of R&D”?
– most of the £500m for the prototypes must be R&D as the bits and bobs (sorry, I wrote that before I realised the context!)have been put on old (?) chassis, I understand, to prove the overall concept…why would we otherwise have seven prototypes (or are they all “partial” in some sense, and only proving a functionality at a time)?
BTW, I am not sure I have declared where I stand on this
– in a couple of weeks we will know more about numbers, but considering the specialist uses for Warriors, their numbers will be an effective constraint
– we will need a new recce vehicle and it is good if it can be the basis for an extended family later (does the protected mobility count as “recce” as well as it will be needed: ATGW, dismounted forward air controllers, snipers, mini-UAVs… you name it, even an HVM dismounted team, if there is a tacair threat)
– the “UOR” hybrid is great news, and I am sure they will find a home in the 16AAB, in the longer term
ArmChairCivvy,
Once again, I have already posted this, the US Army expects to spend $7.6 billion between 2012 and 2017 on R&D for GCV, compare to £500 million ($813 million) over the same length of time for FRES-SV.
Once again, Warrior can not be FRES-SV, there are not enough hulls- FRES-SV is a family of vehicles with four seperate variants and up to 600 hulls in recce block 1 alone with two other blocks with different variants also planned. Secondly WCSP will not provide the levels of protection or mobility that will come with FRES-SV without replacing the entire automotive train.
Terrier was £300 million for 60 vehicles so £5 million a vehicle. It is also far more British than either CV90 or ASCOD (Hull was fabricated by CORUS UK). However to form the basis of FRES-SV it would need an awful lot of very expensive design work, basically becoming an entirely new new vehicle and it only weighs in at about 31.5 tonnes compared to the ASCOD-SV stretch GVW of 42 tonnes but it does prove that there is at least a trace of indigenous armoured vehicle development capability left in the UK.
Hi LJ,
A good solution “in my reality we no longer need a MICV. Instead both the existing Armoured Infantry Regiments and Mechanised Infantry Regiments would be equipped with the Boxer in its various forms, though each regiment would have a “Recce” component of 6-8 vehicles as they do now with WCSP platforms instead of the current CVR(T).”
– but would, fully costed, be in a totally different ballpark from what I have been proposing
– now, replace Boxer by BTR-90s and you will have more than halved the price tag
Bob
There are loads of designs that are far easier to deploy. Taking one at random. Malaysias new 8×8 , 16 tons (24.5 ton combat). It may not do everything Ascod does, but you can get it to where you need it.
What is the point of a 40+ ton wonder weapon stuck in a depot in Britain, while our troops are stuck in LandRovers in foreign hell holes?
I am not advocating we buy this Malaysian armoured vehicle, just pointing out there are more deployable options out there.
I would look at 17 ton Panhard Sphinx with its 40mm CTA gun for mobile firepower. That 19 ton wheeled IED resistant , troop carrier in prototype in Plymouth(name escapes me on a Sunday morning.)
Plus of course, upgraded Warrior.
These 3 would do most of what we need.
Bob: “The TES-H is a nasty lash-up of a variety different bits and pieces that simply avoid the bits that cannot be fixed, the same applies to the wider sustainability programme.”
Sorry, but I can’t take your opinions seriously if you come out with stuff like this. Of course the TES-H is a quick and cheap lash-up – that’s exactly what it was meant to be. As I said in my post, it’s superficial. But WCSP is in a different league and your description in no way applies to the firepower improvements (which is the part I know about in detail).
The “fundamentals of Warrior’s mobility” obviously aren’t that bad since the Army is keen to obtain WCSP which is intended to keep Warrior in service for another quarter-century. Even if it is subsequently decided to replace the engine and transmission, that is frequently done in AFV upgrade programmes and is obviously considered good value compared with buying new vehicles – or people wouldn’t do it. The fact that this is not proposed for Warrior indicates that it isn’t a priority.
I know that FRES-SV is not just about providing recce vehicles; as I said in my post, the plan has been for the FRES SV to consist of reconnaissance, engineering and battlefield medical variants. The APC and other requirements are to be met by FRES UV, which is (or rather was) a wheeled 8×8 vehicle.
So FRES SV is a “specialist vehicle”, as the name suggests, with the recce vehicle the principal one in terms of numbers. An entirely different vehicle is intended for the bulk purchase of APCs etc.
If I were a betting man I would confidently put money on an eventual FRES SV buy (assuming it goes ahead) of far, far fewer than 600 vehicles.
Hi Bob,
We are in violent agreement (=friendly fire)?
You misunderstood my Terrier point (thanks for setting the numbers right; the first go at Terrier was written off after litigation by the MoD, and normally that part of the cost is swept under the carpet; except that NAO has full access to the books and contracts)
– I was just underlining how fully committed the total number of Warriors is, all uses considered
Good old USA! The average over the last decade written off YEARLY for cancelled procurement programmes is the same as our famous black hole in total, as estimated BEFORE sdsr decisions started to eat into it
Tony,
You can’t take my opinions seriously when I say something you agree with? Curious.
I never said Warriors mobility was terrible, I said that ASCOD-SV’s will be better. Combining an engine and transmission replacement with WCSP would end up being as expensive as FRES-SV as one would be rebuilding the entire vehicle and it would still be unlikely that you could squeeze the same protection levels out of it. The fact that it is not proposed for Warrior indicates that it would be expensive, especially given the UOR automotive changes that have been made to the TES-H vehicles to enable them to carry their extra weight. Also, you are wrong on the variants, under current plans there will be an APC version of FRES-SV in recce block 1 (protected mobility version) and the pre-SDSR numbers were for as many as 1,300 units of FRES-SV in total. The recce version will not be the “principle one in terms of numbers” at best it may be the most procured of up to 20 variants but it will certainly not be a majority of the overall buy. As an indication, recce block 1 is planned at 600 vehicles of which only 245 will be recce, the later blocks (2 [141 vehicles], 3 [280 vehicles] and manoeuvre support and medium armour [proposed numbers unannounced]) will likely not provide any additional recce variants beyond the 245 in recce block 1.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for setting the versions right (confirmed my understanding).
I think you are on the wrong side of Tony’s bet
– “block 1 is planned at 600 vehicles of which only 245 will be recce”
– I make that 245 + 50% more units on top, in protected mobility
ArmChairCivvy,
What is your source? I have protected as one of the four variants in recce block 1. 245 Scout variants, repair, recovery and protected mobility. Based on the historical usage of that term in the British army protected mobility would be a turretless APC and that is that can be seen in GDUK imagery. It is my understanding that the scout version will not have capacity for dismounts and there is not an IFV variant (that being the role fulfilled by Warrior) It is possible that something similar to the scout variant may make a reappearance in medium armour but that would be pure speculation unless you have more information than I do?
Bob,
it was my personal view (for a shoe string budget, but also to keep the programme alive past 2015)
– it also factored in that the recce vehicles will need the dismounts (for reasons I explained); and that the std version (as you say) cannot take them
– with these numbers “certain”, the Army can proceed with “re-brigading”; they can’t form units that don’t have kit, and recce is certainly
required (in FRRs as well as within armour formations)
– without MRBs happening, the whole SDSR becomes a cover up for “the slaughter” of the army
BOB
I am going to summerise my views on this (and I think some of the views of some others)
FRES Program is a weapons grade, (see what I did there) Cluster fu*k
That is not the fault of ASCOD
ASCOD is a perfectly decent vehicle now, and as will be upgraded, it will be a good vehicle in the mechanical/ weapons and armament point of view. It will be the equal of anything in its class planned.
But there is an argument that for Reccie it’s too heavy. But that is not the fault of the vehicle. It is a choice made by the buyer. (One I happen to disagree with).
However
IT is a in many ways a parts bin special. OK made up of the very best parts available, it is still made up of mostly off the shelf parts (one or too of which will be further developed sure).
Now if I was building an armoured vehicle of any class that is how I would do it.
So why am I critical.
1) As I said you and other cheer leaders for FRES SV said.
‘The vehicle itself will be outstanding’
‘Yet as I keep pointing out it is the best that the global armoured vehicles industry has to offer ‘
No but it will be as good as anything else, and even if it is ‘the best’, it won’t be for long as technology will march on v quickly. Some humility from it’s proponants would be nice.
2) The unit cost. Of course it will cost multi millions a pop these things always do. (Although I still don’t see why but everyone elses does, so we are not gettting especially stiffed).
3) However and this is where you and I clash. If it’s made up from the good stuff lying around the european arms industry, being prooved on existing hulls, why are we paying hundreds of millions for that part ?
Like I said 2 cheers for this part of the program.
That is not irrational that is not hatred it is not ingorant. It is scepticism something that you have not allayed.
ArmChairCivvy,
The MRB’s will happen, there will just be less of them. It was around the MRB concept that the FRES-SV variant split was created, I suspect what we are going to see will be a reduction in the number of FRES-SV variants with some of the later more extravagant ones being scrapped and an overall reduction in the numbers procured of the remaining variants.
John Hartley,
Why do you persist with this deployability thing? As you have been told multiple times FRES-SV will be entirely deployable as has already been shown by Challenger, AS90 (Iraq and others) and Warrior and Trojan (Afghanistan). Lighter vehicles come with less protection and wheeled vehicles come with a reduced ability to traverse difficult terrain compared to tracked vehicles. Nobody will be driving around in Land Rovers with the numbers of Foxhound’s that will be floating around and just to reinforce the point- FRES-SV will be entirely deployable. Sphinx, as you have already been told, exists only as a mock-up and is a single role vehicle, FRES-SV is to provide a common base platform for multiple variants. The vehicle in Plymouth you refer to is the Ranger, it is an excellent MRAP but its design would make it difficult to adapt to other roles, for instance it is highly unlikely that it could take the ASCOD-SV turret.
IXION,
It is not too heavy, as I have explained before the 42 tonne figure is the headline maximum stretch GVW figure for the base platform, most of the time the scout variant will be around 30 tonnes perhaps a bit heavier (about the same as the Warrior which is being proposed for the role by others here), the vehicle will have an excellent power to weight ratio and as long as the ground pressure is being kept down (and one assumes the design work is doing just that) it should not suffer any adverse mobility characteristics. In addition, if something light really is required the recce elements of the MRB’s will also have a unit of Foxhound/Jackal in the recce role. Weight is not an issue.
Actually it will be the best that the global armoured vehicles industry has to offer and the vehicle is designed from the outset to easily take upgrades (there is a growth path for increased electricity generation and whole point of CIDS is that it makes the vehicle architecture plug and play). Watching the technology curve it is apparent that there is little on the horizon that in pure tech terms will beat it for some time with the possible exception of the very expensive GCV.
As I have also already demonstrated the £500 million for 7 prototypes is actually not that expensive at all. Secondly all those pieces need to be put together and the chassis evolved. The suspension is being changed, CIDS needs to be integrated, the turret needs to be developed to take the CTA gun and the Thales sights, that all needs to be plugged into the rest of the vehicle etc etc. There is also the matter of setting the relevant industrial infrastructure for assembly and future development (GDUK is developing its facilities to support this programme). £500 million looks like a big number, but in relation to the development of other high-end armoured vehicles it really is not (see earlier post about Puma and GCV and I would add the Altay MBT for which Turkey is investing at least $500 million and not doing anything particularly revolutionary), especially when it is prototyping multiple variants and developing the common base platform.
Bob,
I also don’t take people seriously when they deliberately misrepresent my position. I was not agreeing you when I said “But WCSP is in a different league and your description in no way applies to the firepower improvements (which is the part I know about in detail).”
To clarify my position:
1. No-one knows how many Warriors will be needed or how many FRES SV will be bought following the next review. I quote from Jane’s Defence Weekly, 27 July 2011: “A number of major issues must still be solved, including the final shape and size of the British Army armoured fighting vehicle fleet.” Given this, the previously planned procurement levels you quote mean very little.
Incidentally, this was also the article in which the Defence Secretary confirmed that several major projects would definitely go ahead, and he listed them. They included WCSP but not FRES SV. That doesn’t mean that FRES SV won’t be added later, but it indicates priorities.
2. If the size of the armoured force is reduced significantly from present plans (and it seems to be fairly low in the military pecking order compared with new warships and warplanes), leading to a considerably reduced need for Warriors and FRES SV, then it will be reasonable and sensible to re-evaluate the economics of certain decisions, including whether or not it would be economically more sensible to adapt surplus Warriors for the recce role. I’m not saying that it would be, just that it would need to be looked at.
In other words, I am raising questions here (ones which can’t yet be answered, but can be soon) not coming up with answers.
Bob you are very fond of making sweeping assertions without giving any evidence to back them, leaving us only with your unsupported word. Judging by some of the extreme statements you come up with, I must regard what you say with some scepticism until backed by evidence.
Tony,
I have never misrepresented your views, I simply read what you actually wrote. As a reminder, here it is:
Bob: “The TES-H is a nasty lash-up of a variety different bits and pieces that simply avoid the bits that cannot be fixed, the same applies to the wider sustainability programme.”
Sorry, but I can’t take your opinions seriously if you come out with stuff like this. Of course the TES-H is a quick and cheap lash-up – that’s exactly what it was meant to be.
I said that TES-H is a nasty lash up, you agreed with me, but then said because I said that you can not take my view seriously. That is precisely what you said and at no point did I misrepresent you, that is a completely false accusation.
I have given plenty of evidence, far more than anyone else here, including the history of Warrior, the composition of the currently proposed FRES-SV variants (including correcting your false assertion about scout variant numbers), the subcomponents included, the costs of comparative armoured vehicles programmes, etc. So don’t make completely false accusations about what I have said here.
I appreciate that your area of expertise is firepower, but as I pointed out that is only one element of armoured vehicles design and WCSP will not doing anything substantive to the automotive train in Warrior. I repeat, to bring that vehicle up to the same standard as ASCOD-SV would involve a complete rebuild replacing virtually all the components, one would effectively be building a new vehicle but within the shackles of using an existing chassis.
I think it would be worthwhile to note that the current FRES contract covers a significant trials schedule. The existence of the prototype vehicles is not the be-all and end-all of the contract, those vehicles will be going out on the proving grounds.
Mr.fred,
Precisely, the current contract covers not just seven prototype vehicles and the associated R&D but also considerable infrastructure development and as you say, also a trials period.
Exactly “I suspect what we are going to see will be a reduction in the number of FRES-SV variants with some of the later more extravagant ones being scrapped and an overall reduction in the numbers procured of the remaining variants”
– and I used that argument (along with the costliness of Terrier and the hi-tech RA targeting trends, and hence needs) to highlight the pressure on Warrior numbers (and therefore the need to continue with the Scout)
RE “but also considerable infrastructure development ”
– is it really so that prior to the trials we commit to production set up?
Picking up from Mr. fred “those vehicles will be going out on the proving grounds”
– I’ll be really interested to hear back, because VFM can be proved by pairing with existing vehicles in various tactical taskings (sensors and guns have known differences that can be adjusted for in the assessment)
ArmChairCivvy,
No necessarily for production, so complex is a modern armoured vehicle that just for the R&D phase a substantial amount of infrastructure development will be required. Remember that the prototype vehicles will be covered in sensors for evaluation purposes, the components will all be bench tested, fitted to the vehicle and then bench tested again. And that R&D infrastructure will not be redundant when/if the vehicle goes into production as it will be used to keep the vehicle current and make modifications and upgrades as required.
Re: Warrior numbers, there would have to be a VERY substantial reduction in both heavy and medium armour for Warrior to become the solution. BAE has been playing with some manoeuvre support versions of the Warrior which suggests that they have that in mind but ultimately a Warrior is never going to be as effective as an ASCOD-SV without a complete reconstruction.
But, but…we agree!
“Re: Warrior numbers, there would have to be a VERY substantial reduction in both heavy and medium armour for Warrior to become the solution. BAE has been playing with some manoeuvre support versions of the Warrior which suggests that they have that in mind”
– intresting, any detail on those versions? I just look at the M version of BMP2 and it has come miles from the base version (anti-armour out to 5.5 km,the high rate cannon for softer targets and infantry plus an automated grenade launcher raised from the back of the turret when required)
ArmChairCivvy,
We certainly do, I was not arguing with you.
Warrior: http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1658:uk-mod-ponders-modifying-warrior-infantry-vehicle-to-bridge-layer&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
A demonstration vehicle has now been built.
Thanks, Bob, a pity they could not spare a picture (other than a photo of the base vehicle)
And, BTW, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Terrier – other than affordability
Been following the debate with interest – it seems to me to revolve around the same point being debated by everybody – as FRES SV is being built with the lowest risk possible (which under normal circumstances we would all be applauding), and will not result in a vehicle a generation ahead of current vehicles on the market, would it not be better to buy a true of the shelf solution which is 90% as good as FRES without the development costs, and possible lower unit costs? Personally I think as soon as you go with CTA-40, which as far as I can tell means a new turret, it becomes just as expensive to develop FRES SV as it does to buy an off-the shelf solution and integrate a new turret.
So moving beyond this debate, I do have a couple of questions about FRES SV and a question about the new CRV(T) hulls.
With regard to FRES SV, I presume FRES SV was not mentioned by Liam Fox as part of the programmes he has now given permission to go ahead with due to increase in equipment budget, as it technically was already under way. Once the demonstration phase is finished, at what point does the MoD have to order production vehicles before the expertise built up at GD starts to ebb way as the engineers get re-deployed to other projects?
In a follow up question, what are the realistic minimum and maximum numbers per year of FRES that GD can build, presumably too few and its not worth dedicating a production line to it, and to many and GD needs new premises and plant which the taxpayer will have to cover.
Finally, assuming the CRV(T)’s are UOR for Afghanistan, when are they due to be operational, and given the vehicles over there already, do we really need them?
Buying off the shelf is unlikely to lower unit costs, once development and prototyping has been paid for a vehicle costs what its costs to manufacture. Even if you buy off the shelf there are certain things that will have to change, for instance the UK uses a bespoke comms system (Bowman) and battle management system (ComBAT/P-BISA) and these would have to be integrated. Finally, “90% solution” is a turn of phrase, off the shelf might only get you a 50% solution even if you do come up with a way measuring capability numerically. However there is a point to be made that the FRES-SV requirement could be fulfilled for a lower cost if the requirement was made less exacting, the same applies to all procurement programmes.
Hi Tubby, good questions. This one
“Personally I think as soon as you go with CTA-40, which as far as I can tell means a new turret, it becomes just as expensive to develop FRES SV as it does to buy an off-the shelf solution* and integrate a new turret.”
– surely, the MoD and DE&S know the answer to, a pity we don’t (* FOR: or take one in use and paid for)
Bob
I actually agree with most of your comments, FRES SV meets customer requirements, is not too heavy, is not “un-deployable”, not enough Warriors for them to do recce etc
BUT
Please explain this constant use of “the best the world armoured vehicle industry can provide” (I realize that might not be the accurate direct qoute, I simply can’t be arsed to scroll back up to find it) ???
How is the ASCOD 2 based vehicle better than the BAe CV90 based vehicle (for example) ?
To be honest, you don’t come across as simple fan boy, you come across as a MOD procurement or GD(UK) employee.
As to buying off the shelf – well that depends on what you buy, and how it was designed in the first place, but most of the stuff you mention, i.e. adding a Bowman or ComBAT seems a tad disingenuous to me, how does the ComBAT software get integrated into vehicle systems ? It needs displays for the crew for sure, but that’s the same whatever you buy, does it need to be integrated with turret optics ? (laser rangefinder ?) Does it need to be integrated with gun fire control computer ??
Anyway, please tell us why – in your opinion – ASCOD 2 is really the best the worlds armoured vehicle industry can offer :-)
Jed,
ASCOD 2 is not, ASCOD-SV is. And that is by virtue of its supply chain. The use of the 40mm CTA, combined with Thales sights linked through the Rheinmettal designed turret is without doubt an outstanding firepower combination. The uprated 805hp diesel engine running through the same transmission as used by a Puma will give excellent mobility (both components are market leading) and the vehicle is being designed/redesigned from the outset for extensive mine protection. From the outset it is being designed with its own bespoke appliqué armour package for customisable armouring. If you can find a vehicle in this class with a better selection of components I would love to see it. The vehicle data network will also be a major capability driver and leads me to ComBAT/P-BISA. Such systems need displays, they also need to be linked to the surveillance and targeting equipment, the comms equipment and networked within the vehicle for the onboard users. All of this needs to be done in an ergonomic fashion and whilst avoiding electrical interference as far as possible. In FRES-SV the system will be plug and play to allow new equipment to be installed relatively easy. It is something that actually gets quite complicated quite quickly.
CV90-Recce would also have been an excellent vehicle, I have no doubt, but I think the MoD made the right choice between the two based on GDUK’s use of Rheinmettal and German automotive components. The ASCOD-SV also seems to have better embraced the common base platform concept by having a wide turret ring and higher maximum GVW potential, and GDUK made a better industrial offer at the time- in my opinion.
Bob, do you think you could dial down the hyperbole?
Personally, I doubt that the 40mm CTA with any sights or turret is necessarily outstanding. I also prefer the look of almost any other turret to most of Rheinmetall’s offerings.
I suspect that the SV will be adequate and a fair representation of the state of the art. It will not be untouchably greater than contemporary armoured vehicles but it will be a step-change from what the British Army has been using up until now.
It would be interesting to see the difference in successive marks of vehicles over time – comparing the CV90MkI to the MkIII to see the differences in equipment.
Going back a few years, the ideal choice would have been the Warrior 2000 as the basis of a family of medium vehicles with possibly the Stormer as a family of light vehicles.
The CV90 uses the Scania truck engine which is a whole lot cheaper, though not as power dense – however from a reliability point of view I understand it is a whole lot better. The use of German automotive components comes at a price, though is a fairly safe bet.
All the components being suggested are safe bets, though with the ISD of FRES SV being 2017 or later, what are the chances that they are still at the forefront.
Bob – as you are in the know on this, have we settled on catherine MP etc already, or is it being used to proved the concept with the latest version Catherine MP version 2 or 3 or 4 being used closer to the end of development, as undoubtedly technology with move on in the next several years.
Jed, what hyperbole?
Perhaps you could explain why you prefer other turrets? Why you don’t think the Thales sights and 40mm CTA offer very much? Or are you just another shouter with no facts?
Jonesy,
Thermal technology will undoubtedly improve but I don’t what the exact technology path for the sights is at this time, however it will be some variation on Catherine MP (IIRC that sensor has already been used as a UOR on Scimitar under a programme called ESPIRE). it seems unlikely that there will be a major advance in diesel engine or transmission technology prior to 2017, every programme I can think of (off the top of my head) is sticking to OTS automotive components so there is little drive to create anything revolutionary. The turret clearly takes a lot of design experience from the Rheinmettal Lance that has only just come to market and it seems improbable that anything will really better it over the next 5 years- GCV aside. Safe bets is certainly the best term for the component selection, the UK has essentially creamed the best of the top of the market whilst avoiding major subcomponent R&D.
Bob:
Do you really believe that you are not misrepresenting my views when you carefully omit the vital final sentence of the paragraph which you selected from?
My full response was:
“Sorry, but I can’t take your opinions seriously if you come out with stuff like this. Of course the TES-H is a quick and cheap lash-up – that’s exactly what it was meant to be. As I said in my post, it’s superficial. But WCSP is in a different league and your description in no way applies to the firepower improvements (which is the part I know about in detail).”
In other words, I was disagreeing with your assertion that WCSP is a “lash up”, yet you pretend I was agreeing with you! If that isn’t misrepresentation of my poisition, I don’t know what is.
I’m done with you. I’ll reserve my responses for those I respect.
Tony,
The construction of your sentence made it clear that you calling into account my judgement based on the fact that I agreed with you, it is shameful that you now try and cover that fact up. As I have pointed out multiple times WSCP only does so much to a Warrior. Based on your final remark you are clearly an unpleasant individual.
. . . but it’s fine for you to insult my character, Bob?
How much is GDUK paying you? :-)
Whatever it is, they’re getting their money’s worth.
Bob
I never suggested putting a 40mm turret on a Ranger. You are putting words in my mouth. I was talking about a 2 vehicle solution. P Sphinx with its 40 mm to do the firepower stuff accompanied by the 19 ton Universal Engineering Ranger(level 4 ballistic,level 4B mine protection)carrying ten troops.
Given the British Army has had to fight in the Falklands,Kuwait,Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Irag & Afghanistan over the last three decades, then yes, I will go on about deployability.
John Hartley,
I never said you did suggest that, it is you who is putting words in my mouth, I was simply pointing out that as a consequence of its design Ranger lacks the ability to modified to the range of roles desired from FRES-SV. Congratulations on being able to name conflict zones, it does not change the fact that British heavy armour has been successfully deployed to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Oman and that ASCOD-SV should be entirely deployable.
Bob,Bob,Bob……
Bell! on Round One.
3 month review will finally conclude the PR11, soon.
Then we are into Round 12, just like true professionals
– everything said has had an element of truth, just trying to see other arguments (where they fit) does not seem to be working today??
Important topic, as we can see from the intensity of the debate
http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/09_Gnr_Sep_10_email.pdf
– have a look at the pictures, retrofits of MANY new systems [pp. 10-11]
– I wonder (and would love to see) if the ASCODs on proving ranges look like Christmas trees in a similar fashion
Bob,
The hyperbole comment was me, not Jed.
The hyperbole I refer to is the glowing praise with which you describe nearly every aspect of SV. Comments such as “Without doubt” and “will give” (with the emphasis on the will) are unnecessary and presumptuous. The components are good quality but it must be understood that it is possible to take superb components and make something that is less than the sum of the parts, as well as it is possible to make something that is better
My preference for turrets other than Rheinmetall is that historically, including the Lance, they have a tendency to mount weapons externally, especially co-axial machine guns, which means that they cannot be serviced or replenished under armour. The Lance also places its gunner’s sight very close to the centre of the turret where it is more likely to be hit by shots fired at centre mass.
The combination of remote weapons and sights in the front plates means that the profile is a bit lower, but you are no longer able to shape the frontal arc against conventional (i.e. not HEAT and long-rod) threats.
Regarding firepower, my dislike of the 40mm CTA cannon and the reasons for it are well documented on this site. At best we are going to get another RARDEN (or 120mm rifle) – powerful and accurate, but slow-firing and with a lack of ongoing custom that means that it ends up becoming obsolescent while contemporary weapons are more long-lived. At worst it will be less effective than other much cheaper and easier to support weapons whilst also compromising the shape of the turret in terms of silhouette and ballistic shape.
I care not for sights, Thales or otherwise. As long as they give the resolution and pointing accuracy to get the best out of the gun and ancillary systems (laser designator or remote target hand-off) then that’s fine.
My point was not necessarily that the proposed combination will be particularly bad, but rather that its effectiveness is not without doubt. I have doubts, others may well have other doubts that differ from mine, therefore there is doubt.
On another subject, the SPIRE and ESPIRE systems are older thermal systems mounted on CVR(T) Scimitar. These were Avimo products based off a Hughes thermal imager (according to Janes’). They have been replaced on some Scimitars by BGTI from Thales (Avimo was bought out by Thales but BGTI comes from a different Thales site – the ex-Barr and Stroud based in Glasgow). Presumably the enhanced camera is fitted to these vehicles.
Bob – your comment in response to my question was well laid out – thank you.
I disagree mostly with the turret choice, but what the hey ! I am an unabashed CV90 fan boy, and I think their offering would have been a better choice, but that is just my personal opinion, and I have laid out the reasons why on here before, so wont bore anyone again.
Cheers :=)
Mr.fred,
My hat of to you, finally a credible and intelligent response of the variety that so many here have failed to provide. I respect your personal opinions and on the basis that they are personal I shall not argue them. On the subject of ESPIRE, Hansard states that Catherine MP has been integrated into Scimitar through ESPIRE: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/memo/istar/ucm0402.htm
‘finally a credible and intelligent response of the variety that so many here have failed to provide’
Its lucky your not an arrogant sh*t, otherwise that comment might come over as a bit strong
Unfortunatly you have the Chris B technique of getting nasty with people who both agree and disagree with you.
It is not attractive and does not add to the strength of your arguments.
Jed, no worries RE
” I am an unabashed CV90 fan boy, and I think their offering would have been a better choice”
– it is now being offered to Canada under “CCV” Close Combat Vehicle (you are over there?)
IXION,
I was looking for something relevant to Scimitar, Spartan, Warrior or FRES in that post but just could not find it.
ArmChairCivvy,
The turretless CV90 (Armadillo) has also been suggested for the Australian Land 400 programme.
I’m afraid that a lot of people still dreams/want an “air deployability” of armour that is largely, if not entirely, a dream.
I see the debate is quite hot, and i don’t want to make it even hotter by making anyone feel offended, but i must put forwards a couple of simple truths:
PUMA weights 31.45 tons standard. With the modular armor kits, it weights 43 tons.
The German army air-mobility plan for PUMA is that a group of 3 PUMA takes 4 A400 to deploy: one for each vehicle, one for carrying basical support and the up-armoring kits, to be installed after landing.
ASCOD comes at a minimum weight of 25 tons, combat weight 28, but ASCOD SV will be heavier, no less than 30 tons, perhaps 34.
It is designed to be, at build, fully capable to deliver the required performances up to weights of 42 tons, and further weight growth margin exists in the transmission to grow to 45 tons.
FRES SV, at least at entry in service, will NOT weight 42 tons, nor 38. It will be comparable in air mobility to PUMA, i believe.
Also, the modular add-on approach for armor is, i think, mandated both for Warrior upgrade and FRES, so only a part of the weight is “fixed”.
It will be A400 mobile, and a couple will fit into a C17. That’s the end of it.
And this is before we reason about the support kit, the fuel, and all the other stuff that must be airlifted along with the vehicle to make “air mobility” real.
And then we should factor in the range of the A400 loaded to such weights.
And this would bring us to air refuelling, and here we discover that of 9 “full-time” FSTA tankers, only 7 will be ready to be 3-points tankers, and only 5 will actually be kitted in the centerline position. (NAO Major Projects report, 2010)
Reality?
Quit dreaming about airlifting armoured regiments. Please. You are never going to fit within such dream.
Lightly armoured vehicles, yes. But “Armour” intended as vehicles with protection requirement as tough as these… it just can’t be done.
Protection OR air mobility. Which would be “virtual” even for a 20 tons vehicle.
Better to invest on protection and growth margin for a long, successful future service at this point.
Which is what all armies have overall concluded after the period of air mobility dreams, which is now over.
Just a fly by comments guys, can we dial down the tone a bit?
Gabriele,
Excellent post, thank you for the detail.
Hi Bob,
“Buying off the shelf is unlikely to lower unit costs, once development and prototyping has been paid for a vehicle costs what its costs to manufacture….. [cut here for brevity not to make a point]”
Okay, my engineering experience is on the R&D side working on surfacing’s on roads, which does not lend itself to economy of scale – though logically the more systems you change from baseline the more expensive the development cost, which combined with the fact that larger orders reduce unit costs would lead me to conclude that this would apply to FRES as well – though I would be shocked if the MoD has not done cost/benefit analysis and a whole life costing of the various options and used this to inform there decisions.
Given FRES is your mastermind subject I had hoped you could shed some light on my questions about FRES as I am really curious to get a handle of what might happen with FRES programme.
@everyone
Does anyone have more information on this rumour from ARRSE:
“I know this sounds sick but there is a sizable pressure group within a major arms manufacturer to refurbish M113, yes I said M113, and give it to the British Army as a stop gap. The notion has its supporters within the MOD!!! There are thousands of the things going very cheap.”
http://www.arrse.co.uk/tanks-planes-ships/160469-should-british-army-buy-stryker-fres-off-shelf.html#post3682023
I hadn’t heard anything about M113s, but… surely… with 900 overall very good, recently updated FV430 MK3 Bulldogs, you retire them and then buy second-hand M113 about as ancient, non upgraded, and “upgrade them” to put them into service.
…
Is it me, or it effectively makes NO frigging sense AT ALL??????
Just keep the Bulldog then.
ADDITION TO MY EARLIER POST: the bit about FSTA centerline refueling point was not a random rant: it is due to the centerline point being the one useful for refueling big, heavy airplanes such as Sentry. Or A400.
So a plan of delivery of armor by air has to take in consideration:
-Weight
-Armour desired post-landing (is add-on armor indispensable immediately, or can it be delivered, say, later, when the unit goes out fighting?)
– number of A400 and C17 available
– Range and availability of support arfields for “hopping” and/or availability of air tankers suitable to refuel cargo planes.
And so along.
That’s why i do not get hot at all about air mobility. It is an illusion.
The Lynx (the one with tracks, not rotors) I would not mind
– they put the M113 through the wash, to shrink it for a recce size
If you have time & suitable ports, then of course you send armour by ship.
You would only send armour by air from the UK if you have only a couple of days to prevent an invasion & do not want to leave your spearhead infantry exposed,so it would be small in number, but just enough to deter attack.
The alternative situation is where armour does most of the journey by ship, but is needed deep in hostile territory, so gets flown the last bit of the journey. Think former Yugoslavia or hopping over Pakistan to Afghanistan.
Britain air lifting armour to stop an invasion? The United States could barely achieve the deployment of a weak tankette battalion by air in 1990. A speed bump. These imaginary scenarios should play no part in serious conceptualising of our AFV requirements.
We need inflatable tanks! Hang on I will just google the number for ACME.
Do we really need this? If the Scimitars won’t stretch for another three years, what does this offer that a Jackal or WMIK Foxhound or Warthog doesn’t?
Curious that we have a load of low mileage Spartans lying around – given our tendencies in recent years to quickly off-load surplus but still potentially useful kit – but if we have them, why would we choose to put a Scimitar lid on them rather than an open or glass turret with either a HMG or GMG? Are we worried we’ll be stuck with a shed full of 30mm after we upgrade?
I think airlifting armour is a red herring – at least strategically although it may have a tactical role.
The main problem I see with such a big and heavy vehicle (it’s longer, wider and when kitted out with it’s applique armour, the same weight as a Mk1 Centurion tank) is that it will have severe mobility problems in may parts of the world where bridges will be unable to take it’s weight and roads will be too narrow.
As an example, even in prosperous, first world england it would face problems. Any bridge that wasn’t on a major road or motorway would, probably, be too weak to take even a baseline ASCOD (or Warrior, for that matter).
Hi x,
USMC gave up on their jet ski, but the Chinese persisted:
“The new ZBD2000 amphibious fighting vehicle is similar to the U.S. Expeditionary Fight Vehicle (EFV) in concept, though the former is fitted with heavier armour protection. The vehicle was designed to be launched at sea, from an amphibious assault ship 10km or more offshore, capable of high-speed (>25 knots) travelling to shore. Because the vehicle can swim for a relatively long distance, the threats of enemy mines and shore defences faced by the amphibious assault ship is reduced significantly. Like the EFV, the ZBD2000 uses a planning hull propelled by two water jets.”
Pete Arundel,
The current UK legal limit for lorries is 44 tons (raised from 38 tons in 2001) and has been harmonised across Europe at 40 tonnes for international transport. Most of the UK and EU major road network and associated bridges are capable of taking that. In addition the point of a tracked vehicle is that it is not tied to roads. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out here multiple times the recce elements of the MRBs will have a light component in the form of either Jackal or Foxhound should the necessity arise for something genuinely small. Crucially FRES-SV will be able to go anywhere that Warrior, Challenger, Terrier, Titan, Trojan and AS90 can go.
@ ACC
Yes I have been following this vehicle with some interest since the cancellation of the EFV. How the Yanks cobbled EFV is absolutely amazing.
Of course when one suggest inflatables one was being slightly facetious….
On this at least we are agreed we will not be airlifting armour into anywhere. unless very desperate to use a few vehicles for a short period of time.
BOB
So you see Fres as European theatre of opperations weapon?
Much of the world will struggle with 40 ton vehicles.
This is my cheif criticism of th system appart for cost.
(This is not an ASCOD specific problem)
We are moving up a weight class and inevitably a fuel consumption class, so more logistical problems.
Fres in all its glory means in reality heavy armour full deployments.
So it is more likley to be left at home when we travel far for our wars…
Its a bit like warriors not turning up in afghan.
Ixion,
Once again, if you are criticising FRES-SV for its weight then you are criticising the armoured fleets of most of the world- good luck finding an MBT below 40 tonnes. Furthermore that is why armoured formations have manoeuvre support elements. And Warriors have turned up in Afghanistan, as have Trojans, Leopards, CV90s, Pzh2000s and Abrams amongst others. And as has also been pointed out multiple times before ASCOD-SV will spend most of its life below 30 tonnes. The weight argument is as much a red herring as the airlift one. And you have still not explained adequately how it is expensive.
“. Most of the UK and EU major road network and associated bridges are capable of taking that”.
Your important words here, Bob, are MAJOR ROAD NETWORK. It doesn’t matter how mobile your tracked vehicle is if it has to follow the major road network to cross every river and canal. Amphibious vehicles don’t help either for the rather obvious reason that even if they can get into the canal they certainly won’t be able to get out without a handy slipway to help them.
Just get out a map of europe and have a look at the number of rivers and canals there are and remember that only the major roads will be likely to have bridges rated for more than 15 or 20 tons.
“Once again, if you are criticising FRES-SV for its weight then you are criticising the armoured fleets of most of the world- good luck finding an MBT below 40 tonnes”
But ASCOD-SV isn’t an MBT. It’s primarily a scout vehicle.
ACC – yes I am a plastic, or “wannabe” Canadian :-) Indeed BAe is offering both CV90 Armadillo AND the SEP based Alligator (in 6 x6).
Pete and Ixion – Bob did not write the requirements for FRES-Scout, the British Army wants a level of protection and firepower that basically set the weight – which is why it has tracks and not wheels, and which is why FRES-SV includes “manouvre” support vehicles, like armored bridge layers.
This is only new for armoured recce, the “problem” or “issue” has of course beset the Warrior class vehicles for what, 25 years now ? As I have said before IMHO the days of the 10 tonne CVR(T) are gone, that weight level does not offer the required protection.
At lower weight levels we have wheeled vehicles, the crappy Jackal / Jackal 2 thing (seriously, crew sat over the axle ?!) and maybe a WMIK type veriant of the Foxhound.
So Pete: “But ASCOD-SV isn’t an MBT. It’s primarily a scout vehicle.” – so what ? The Army thinks it needs a Scout that weight in over 30 tonnes, that’s the new world.
Best we dont ditch any Royal Engineer regiments in any further cuts….. :-)
@ IXION
“Unfortunatly you have the Chris B technique of getting nasty with people who both agree and disagree with you,”
Those who live in glass houses should avoid throwing stones.
Such stones as calling someone an arrogant sh*t who thus far hasn’t resorted to open, pointed insults.
For the record I disagree with Bob, and his answers smell strongly of someone deeply involved in the project.
“Bob did not write the requirements for FRES-Scout,”
I am actually on record as saying just that, Jed. To quote me; “Bob, it’s not ASCOD-SV that is the problem, as such. A CV90, Puma, Bionix or any other modified MICV would have been just as lacklustre. It’s not even GDUK’s fault since they produced the polished turd that is ASCOD-SV in responce to a specification drawn up by the MoD.”
In 1990/91, Saddam should have waited for the light early coalition units to arrive, then hit them with everything before the heavy weapons arrive. One day, a future dictator will realise this.
I seem to remember that in late 1990 , the only Western armour facing Saddam was some French armoured cars (90mm gun) that had been FLOWN in to Saudi.
Of course , if you want to leave pathfinder troops vulnerably exposed while waiting for heavy equipment to turn up, that is for your conscience.
The alternative is the Sarajevo situation. Western peacekeepers protecting a city from a hostile countryside. If you try to ram an armoured column through from outside, you risk all out war with allies taking sides(Russia) & perhaps a repeat of Arnhem with the armoured column being repeatedly ambushed as it fights its way to the beleagered city.
Perhaps we would have been better off ordering MI-26 with their 24 ton payload rather than 14 more Chinooks?
“The Army thinks it needs a Scout that weight in over 30 tonnes, that’s the new world.”
I honestly wonder if it is what the army wants or what the MoD is willing to provide.
What’s the betting that the Army want’s both, a scout in the 30 – 42 tonne range and a light scout in 10 tonne range. We lack the first (which makes it a priority) and we can life extend the second. I would not be surprised to see both CRV(T) and FRES SV in the MRB’s.
Thanks Gabby for commenting on the M113 rumour – I thought we only upgraded 200ish Bulldog’s so was surprised when you said 900, and I cannot see M113’s being a stopgap for the SV role, so my guess is that someone is campaigning for them to fill the Utility role, though I do wonder if the MoD would save a significant amount of money once you life extend them to result in the MoD being able to field a significant larger number of them than new build 8×8 (ignoring the whole tracked versus wheeled debate).
Chris B
You are right!
I did get a bit annoyed.
BOB
Like I said I was not criticising ASCOD.
But we are writing the script for very armoured heavy in real terms infantry brigade. The logisitc side of things is something we have been very weak on of late it is not playing to our strengths. (Borrowers anyone)
The logisitcs of supporting it (Remember the whole point of Fres SV is that it will be well forward), mean will be hard to feed.
You are right everyones at it, building these things.
However I remind you they will not be invulnearable and to get any where near that you are looking at Nammer (or whatever the 70 ton Isreali thing is called).
And do not dismiss lightly the weight issue in the reconnascence field.
eg In WW2, US forces loved the M series armoured cars (despite being far from the best in the field) because it could cross bridges and access roads (it was not that brilliant off road), heavier equipment could not.
And as I said CVRT has turned up in a lot of places because it was cheaper to shipout, and easier to support in the field. Why were our troops using snatch in Iraq when we had warriors sitting in garages in UK?
“Thanks Gabby for commenting on the M113 rumour – I thought we only upgraded 200ish Bulldog’s so was surprised when you said 900, and I cannot see M113′s being a stopgap for the SV role, so my guess is that someone is campaigning for them to fill the Utility role, though I do wonder if the MoD would save a significant amount of money once you life extend them to result in the MoD being able to field a significant larger number of them than new build 8×8 (ignoring the whole tracked versus wheeled debate).”
The Bulldog (FV430 MK3) upgrade contract was expanded several times, and ultimately totaled 900 vehicles (http://www.deagel.com/news/British-Army-Takes-Delivery-of-500th-Upgraded-Bulldog-Infantry-Armored-Vehicle_n000004263.aspx), and now Bulldog is the vehicle of the Mechanized Infantry after the withdrawal of Saxon.
Thus is the vehicle that FRES UV was (and in theory still is) supposed to replace, first by 2012, then 2015, then 2022 last time it was delayed (2010, but pre-SDSR, so we must wait the September equipment report to know if FRES UV still exists at all or if it gets binned).
That’s why the M113 rumor makes no sense to me. Replacing Bulldog with – almost certainly inferior – M113s is… almost like replacing Bulldog with non-updated FV430 Mk2. Just keep what’s already there and spare the trouble, no…???
Also, at 14 tons, 71 km/h and with 8 dismounts on board, the Bulldog is a nice vehicle for the Mechanized Infantry.
All it needs (since it got engine and mechanical parts changed in 2006, so they cannot be old already!) is a further investment to fit more vehicles with the RWS turrets instead of the glass shield used on most Bulldogs.
It can work well up to 2022, i say.
Even if course, by then it will be 70 years old!
“What’s the betting that the Army want’s both, a scout in the 30 – 42 tonne range and a light scout in 10 tonne range. We lack the first (which makes it a priority) and we can life extend the second.”
Not sure there is any real appetite (and furthermore, any budget) to life-extend Scimitars, even for special roles (say, air mobile RECCE squadron for 16 Air Assault).
Instead, the MOD has signed contracts for a parachute platform capable to take 10 tons, but aimed at Jackal and, possibly, Foxhound.
The Light RECCE vehicle might well be Jackal/Foxhound. I see it far more likely than Scimitar.
RE “commenting on the M113 rumour – I thought we only upgraded 200ish Bulldog’s”
– as I have pointed out several times, the next problem (after getting the Scout[s]mix determined and ordered) is the MI bn’s
– write off the early Mastiffs, take all the rest (plus Wolfhounds and Huskies as support), all of the Warthogs and the 200+ Bulldogs, and just – only just – you can get 5 bn’s kitted
— how long that fleet will last – anybody’s guess
Ahh, we got the first guess
“It can work well up to 2022, i say.
Even if course, by then it will be 70 years old!”
– assuming that date we can work out the minimum investment
– about 250 Scouts and an additional half of that number in protected mobility version
– replace the intended mobility support with the Warrior bridge layer conversion (Titan – and Trojan – are superb, but with their weight would restrict the mobility of the overall formation, not always enhance it)
– an order twice as big as the above combined for the UV (Warthogs should last, though, so minus a hundred) model (which ever!plenty of good ones around), all to be delivered by the said “2022”. The good news: Unit cost can’t be more than half of the more specialist versions?
PS Thanks for the link, Gabby, will have to study the number detail further
I see the same myths being repeated here all over again.
FRES-SV is not a scout vehicle, it is a base platform for a family of specialised vehicles of which a Scout vehicle is just one. ASCOD-SV will spend the vast majority of its life below 30 tonnes, there will not be 42 tonne scout vehicles rolling around. To follow on from Gabrielles point, as I have pointed out multiple times the recce elements of the multirole brigades are now intended to include a unit equipped with Foxhound/Jackal for the light recce role should it be retired, that base is covered. As for deployability and logistics, as I have also already pointed out multiple times, Afghanistan is the most austere environment that any army can imagine operating in and it is currently home to Abrams, Leopard 2, PZh2000, Warrior, CV90, Trojan and others. Raising Snatch Land Rovers is pathetic, they were used for a very specific tactical scenario where a Warrior (and most other vehicles) was not appropriate, it had nothing to do with cost. The fact that commanders want a very small wheeled vehicle for certain scenarios manifested itself in Foxhound.
The weight issue is not being dismissed it has already been covered by pointing out that ASCOD-Scout will not even be that heavy (below 30 tonnes) and the multirole brigades will have a light recce element within them in addition to the ASCOD-Scout units. So Tubby, there is not betting about it, the Army is getting both a sub 10 tonne wheeled recce vehicle and a 25-30 tonne recce vehicle within the recce units of the MRBs.
Re Bulldog, first I want to comment on Saxon, the fact that that vehicle has been retired is amusing as it was only acquired in the 80s and 90s, some of them will not even me 20 years old now. Bulldog is an excellent vehicle and there is probably still a bit more that can be done to them, rubber band tracks etc and as APC’s for mechanised infantry they do the job just fine, it was always odd that FRES-UV was taking priority over FRES-SV when it was clear that the latter was the more urgent requirement, that strangeness was confirmed with the dramatic about turn that occurred with the end of the FRES-UV negotiations.
“Of course , if you want to leave pathfinder troops vulnerably exposed while waiting for heavy equipment to turn up, that is for your conscience.”
Nice. It is far more likely that if there were a British force being supplied by air then the transport space would be far better used flying in defence stores and munitions to dig the infantry in as tight as a tic rather than using all that space to fly in a few tankette’s that, when used to fight, are vulnerable to almost every anti tank weapon out there.
It’s much harder to kill small dug in teams of infantry armed with Javelin and mortars than it is to kill a handful of tankette’s who wouldn’t be able to stand tank or ATGW fire.
In 1990 that tiny insignificant French and American armoured force would have been swept aside by the mass and striking force of an Iraqi thrust. Anyone with any sense knew that, they were because nothing else could be that quick. They had almost no utility in the wider scheme of things beyond a political reassurance and a screening force, and we can’t even deploy that force level and neither can the United States anymore.
Airlifting in AFVs to fight draws resources away from areas that can make better use of them.
That is called deterrence – nuclear is the last ditch and 99% of the time not relevant
“In 1990 that tiny insignificant French and American armoured force would have been swept aside by the mass and striking force of an Iraqi thrust. Anyone with any sense knew that, they were because nothing else could be that quick. They had almost no utility in the wider scheme of things beyond a political reassurance and a screening force, and we can’t even deploy that force level and neither can the United States anymore.”
– how “massive” was the previous shield/ deterrence force that flew in from HMS Bulwark thirty years earlier?
– 82nd is still there;in the early nineties their Sheridans were used on ranges as OpFor tanks – did any actually go with them (doubt it)
– 101st is maintained as a (much more substantial) force that can follow, with “flying tanks” only, so a Division can initially operate as a “Corps” across a large area, until “the rest” gets there
For the sake of the current argument, I am prepared to accept that ASCOD-SV is the “best that the global armoured vehicle industry has to offer”. Having said that, I do not believe that pursuing this option presents the best use of the scarce resources available in the defence equipment budget, for 2 reasons.
We have a ready cheaper alternative in the form of an updated Warrior
As Tony Williams has ably described a Warrior with a new drive train and WSCP updates would provide most of the capabilities of ASCOD-SV although, according to Bob, the ASCOD hull would offer better mine protection. So it would seem reasonable to suggest that an upgraded Warrior would represent an 80% solution to the requirement without the expense of manufacturing new hulls.
Bob also said that “there would have to be a very substantial reduction in both heavy and medium armour for Warrior to become the solution” – that is precisely what is happening.
SDSR proposes a 40% reduction in CR2 numbers and a 35% reduction in AS90 numbers. Perhaps more significantly the British Army has now adopted Whole fleet management (WFM). This means that only units on operations or at the high readiness phase of the cycle will be fully equipped, other units having only small numbers for training. Given that each MRB will contain only 1 AI battalion it would seem sensible to assume that no more than 3 battalions worth of AI equipment will be required.
If updated Warrior(WR) were to replace all existing WR + 432 +CVRT in an AI battalion then 86 would be needed per battalion, so 258 in total. To this we would need to add 24 (8×3) for armoured regiment recce plus 24 (8×3) for mech infantry recce (again assuming 1 per MRB) and say (not as sure of the numbers) 204 (68×3) for the FRR if updated WR were to replace CVRT in those units. So a grand total of 510 needed.
According to Charles Heyman, the army originally took delivery of 793 WR, of which (2008), 482 were basic versions, 59 RA versions and 126 repair and recovery. I don’t know the status of the remaining 126.
So we seem to have enough WR for this to be a viable solution.
My second objection is that we should not be trying to fill all our recce requirements with 30 or 40 ton tracked vehicles.
Pete Arundel has described some of the disadvantages of such vehicles and John Hartley has offered a good alternative in the shape of the Panhard Sphinx. I believe that a combination of updated WR and Sphinx would offer the best solution.
A thread titled “Future of the RAC” on the RAC Forum on ARRSE puts much of this in context
Percontator,
As has been explained here multiple time already, Warrior is not a viable alternative without a massive reduction in British Army medium armour forces. FRES-SV is intended to provide a base platforms (of which scout is only one variant) and there are nowhere near enough Warriors for it to remain in the heavy armour role and form the function of base platform. The scale of the upgrades required to Warrior to make it technically equivalent to the FRES-SV would result in having to rebuild it as a new vehicle with the complete replacement of virtually every component soon making it as expensive as FRES-SV. So Warrior is out. Sphinx is not a good solution as it will exist as only a single variant (versus 4 in recce block 1 alone) and it currently only exists as a mock-up, nothing more. All this has been explained before. The idiocy of people, like Tony Williams, who think FRES-SV is just or primarily about a scout vehicle is astounding. FRES-SV is about a common base platform onto which multiple variants will be built. It is not a Scimitar replacement it is a CVR(T) replacement. Cancelling FRES-SV and replacing it with rebuilt Warriors in just the scout role immediately raises the problem of what to do about the rest of the FRES-SV requirement.
Finally, and again this has been stated over and over again, the British Army is not “trying to fill all our recce requirements with 30 or 40 ton tracked vehicles” that is utter rubbish, it is intending to fulfil its recce requirement with a tracked vehicle with a weight that will rarely exceed 30 tonnes and with light recce vehicles in the form of Foxhound/Jackal, this is already planned force structure within the recce units of the multirole brigades. Why do people insist on repeating things that are not true?
“I see the same myths being repeated here all over again.
FRES-SV is not a scout vehicle, it is a base platform for a family of specialised vehicles of which a Scout vehicle is just one”
When originally postulated the FRES program comprised FRES-UV (utility vehicle/ variant) and SV (scout vehicle). The program was to replace the CVR(t), 432 and Saxon vehicles. The SV was to replace Scimitar/Sabre/Scorpion. The SV, at some point, stopped being Scout Vehicle and became Specialist Vehicle and comprises a Scout, Battlefield medical and, depending on whose website you look at, engineering or “manoevre support” vehicles. The scout variant will far outnumber the others. A battlefield medical vehicle could certainly be created using surplus Warriors. Engineering vehicles would perhaps be better served by Terrier and that leaves the Scout.
“ASCOD-SV will spend the vast majority of its life below 30 tonnes, there will not be 42 tonne scout vehicles rolling around. ”
Well Warrior is already up to 28 tons so lets re-engine it and have done! Mind you, a Warrior is still to heavy and tall to make a good scout vehicle.
“The scale of the upgrades required to Warrior to make it technically equivalent to the FRES-SV”
The point is, Bob, that a lot of those upgrades have already been done for Warrior. It has a new turret with a stabilised 40mm CTA cannon. It’s got new electronic architecture and a new modular armour package.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/WCSP-Britains-Warriors-to-Undergo-Mid-Life-Upgrade-05967/
Warrior needs a new engine and transmission but, as these things tend to get smaller with new technology, there should be room to do so – afterall, the 432 was recently given a new drivetrain.
Pete Arundel,
Perhaps you could tell us how many Warriors have the new turret? Or how many Warriors have been through the WCSP in general?
We have already been through this, there are not enough Warriors in existence to fulfil the FRES-SV requirement (1,300 vehicles and Warrior is still required) without armour reductions far beyond the scale of overall force reductions.
FRES-SV was always going to be a family of vehicles, it was only bad reporting and a lack of intelligence that had people thinking otherwise.
From percontator ” the army originally took delivery of 793 WR, of which (2008), 482 were basic versions, 59 RA versions and 126 repair and recovery”
* RA want to (wish! to) change to a two vehicle config, the one becoming overloaded with kit/ functions (or alternatively, battle ineffective)
=> 2 x 59 +126 = 244 specialist versions
* 482-59- 340 (the widely floated number for turret upgrades) = 83 left “over”
Therefore, with numbers from 4 years ago, there would be 83 available for
– bridge layer (light enough for a recce force)
– battle field ambulance
… and if you “minus” the 70 of latest upgrades, you actually get 13 mobility enhancers and zero battle field ambulances (so that will come out of enhanced mobility version numbers for the FRES SV then?)
340 minus the 258 quoted = a reasonable float for workshops, deeper refit, TA practising…?
245 number for the new Scout minus 204 requirement as quoted= reasonable float, to me at least
Unknown: Protected mobility for both recce dismounts & battle field ambulance versions, some fraction of the above, but clearly a smaller number?
@ Bob re Tony Williams
Please don’t call people idiots. You are new here. I find your lack of manners “astounding.”
Tony is a published and well respected author.
All we know about you is that you are “Bob” and rude.
Show the community some respect or do one.
“Perhaps you could tell us how many Warriors have the new turret? Or how many Warriors have been through the WCSP in general?”
I assume that enough will be modernised to meet the needs of the armoured infantry and other current users of Warrior – or the ones that are left after the SDSR is implemented.
How many battlefield medic vehicles are needed and how many Warriors will be available after the latest cuts to be modified for such a role? If more warriors need modifying then at least the modification packages have already been designed and are in production.
Bob, I’m not suggesting that Warrior should be used to fulfil the Scout role. It would be as bad a choice as ASCOD-SV. No, I think a proper scout is needed while a Terrier version should be used for any ‘engineer’ or ‘manoevre support’ vehicles to give a common chassis for Royal Engineer vehicles.
So what you are actually saying is that there are no Warriors have been through WCSP. That programme is valued at £1 billion for £449 vehicles, on top of that you are suggesting an entirely new drivetrain which will come with a need for considerable internal reworking, basically stripping the vehicle down to its chassis, modifying that chassis and then replacing all the components, lets call it £1.5 billion in total. All to be left with a vehicle less capable than ASCOD-SV and with insufficient numbers to provide all the required based platforms. For comparison, Recce block 1 is valued at £1.5 billion for unto 589 platforms and the overall FRES-SV procurement at £4 billion for 1,300. I know how you don’t like facts but that is what they are- rebuilding Warriors would be as expensive (if not more so) as procuring a similar number of FRES-SV for a less capable vehicle in insufficient numbers.
And we are still waiting on a credible reason from you why ASCOD-SV is bad choice as you have yet to provide one.
“So what you are actually saying is that there are no Warriors have been through WCSP. ”
Since I can’t work out the meaning of that sentence I can’t really answer it.
“That programme is valued at £1 billion for £449 vehicles”
Or, indeed, that sentence.
Calm down, Bob, and try again or edit the above post into meaningful english.
Bob
Warrior costs
As Tony Williams pointed out in his excellent post. MoD is committed to WCSP (regardless of ASCOD-SV) so this will not be an additional cost.
A new drive train will be an extra cost, but a new hull will not be required.
Why then do you claim that this option would be as expensive as ASCOD-SV?
Warrior numbers
I provided a scenario with supportive numbers. I did not, as you suggest, only deal with Scimitar replacement.You seem to be relying upon pre-SDSR and pre-WFM FRES offtake numbers. Perhaps you could explain in which units and in what numbers per unit this fantasy fleet will be employed.
Sphinx
It may be currently just a mock up. What was ASCOD-SV 12months ago?
FFR Structure
As for the planned force structure of FFR, I once again suggest that you read the Future of RAC thread on ARRSE. You might be enlightened.
ArmChairCivvy
I’m afraid I didn’t follow all of the arguments in your reply.
However so far as the RA WR vehicles are concerned , 59 was the number in 2008. Since then SDSR has proposed a reduction of 35% in heavy artillery and WFM has substantially reduced the numbers required in every category of armoured vehicle.
In the particular case of bridgelayers, they could be based on a version of Terrier which was itself originally derived from WR.
Bob
Sorry but as I Obvioulsy lack intelligence can you tell me. How fres is going to be a capability leap in protection, Fres SV is not a miricle.
It is either 30 tons plus in which case it is better protected than warrior, or it is the same sort of weight with the same vulnerabilities. (like I said it will not be invulnerable).
It can’t be much better protected / IED Proof when it’s spending it’s time at 28 tons.
The multi use of chassis aproach is such an obvious good logisitaclly, I realy hope it is used for lots indeed it could do with replacing the warrior in that case. But The sv bit is in part a cvrt replacement. it will be tripple the weight and double the external dimmensions.
It’s not pathetic to raise snatch landrover to make a point. Thers is much bad reporting and pontificating on the ‘ Our boys left to die in death traps’ type. I was not buying into that.
However the stupidity of the British Armies, obsession with trying to do stuff when armed with pointy sticks is well documented.
I was speaking to soliders in NI, and those who were going and afterwards went to IRAQ, the phrase ‘Tuperware coffins’ were being used. One comment about Saxon in the Balkans: –
‘Not something I would choose to go to war in but you use what you’ve got’
Comes to mind.
It was well reported at the time that the officer classes were obsessing about deployability and the MOD was patting everyone on the back and telling them it knew best.
There are people in high office in and out of uniform who should be shot for the state we went to war in. But even more for the way we acted afterwards.
If it is too heavy to / too big to be readily transported on commerical equipment, the temptation will be to leave it behind.
How many warriors/ challangers etc do we have if afghan? very few.
How many did we keep in Iraq after the war was over, and we moved into peace keeping, very few.
I realise I am open to the Hypocrasy charge after all I am advocating deployable lighter and therefore less well protected vehicles.
“But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’
15 tons in Afghan is worth any number of 50 tons in a shed in Britian.
Bearing in mind just how good modern and even previous generation anti armour missiles are; and how common the:-
Whatever the Pashtun is for
‘Lets put in another 100KGs of explosive for luck’
IED has become.
I remain unconvinced as to what 28 or 42 tons of protection really buys in the hard cash of reduced vulnerability in the reconascence role.
BTW this is a pricipal and for the prupose of it Fres SV Puma and CV90 are all the same.
AS far as Fres is concerned I still am of the opinion that we are not
‘Polishing a turd’
But we may be engaged in usuall MOD
’17th jewellers rouge hand rubbing down of the surface of the crafstman made unobtainum hull before applying 18 coats of hand finshed paint.
When a quick sand blast (of a hopefully super bainite, based Hull) and blow over in Nato green would do.
Also Do stop insulting the intelligence of those who argue with you. Just because you don’t agree with them.
Einstien went to his grave refusing to accept Quantem theory, he was not stupid.
From what I’ve seen of Super Bainite, it’s a low-cost high hard steel. You don’t use high hard steel for structures.
Much of the argument for the weight of Recce vehicles stems from having CVR(T) do it for the past few decades, therefore a scout vehicle must be small, right? There is a good argument for having a decent-sized, well protected vehicle for recce work. We haven’t done it recently because we haven’t had one recently.
Pete,
Picking out typos because you have been proven wrong is pathetic. WCSP is £1 billion for 449 vehicles without doing anything to the automotive chain. Add automotive chain replacement and everything that goes with it and you will soon end up well over a billion. FRES-SV recce block 1 is £1.5 billion for 589 new build vehicles, Warrior does not look so cheap in reality does it? I will do some maths for you, even without an automotive change WSCP has a unit cost just £320,000 cheaper than FRES-SV recce block 1 (if we assume, which we now should, that the £500 million development contract is a sunken cost) yet FRES-SV provides new build vehicles with all the future growth potential that Warrior does not have.
percontator,
See above for costs and, I am relying on official numbers and will reevaluate my stance when those numbers are updated, it is only yours that are fantasy at this time. Furthermore the MoD is NOT committed to WCSP as no production contract has yet been signed for that programme. As the FRES-SV development phase contract has been signed it is actually more committed to FRES-SV.
Ixion,
Whoever said that FRES-SV was a miracle? It will however be better protected than a Warrior by virtue of the fact that it is being designed from the outset with enhanced mine protection (one round of blast tests already complete) and will be able to commit a larger portion of its GVW to protection by virtue of its more power dense power pack and in the case of the scout version the fact that it will not carry dismounts. Once again, it will entirely deployable, just as Warrior, Trojan, and Challenger have all been in the past. Long term MoD armoured vehicles policy is indefensible but in the case of FRES-SV I believe they have finally come to a sensible solution that keeps risk relatively low and that has the potential to provide an excellent vehicle- it would be a real shame if it did not make it.
Mr.Fred,
Excellent point re small vehicles, i would add what I also pointed out earlier which is that the US has been using the Bradley M3 as a recce vehicle for over 20 years and that vehicle is roughly the same size and weight as the Warrior. And to to repeat the point yet again, the recce regiments within the multirole brigades will have a light squadron equipped with Jackal/Foxhound in addition to their two squadrons of ASCOD-SV scouts to provide that light capability.
“So what you are actually saying is that there are no Warriors have been through WCSP”
Translate that one for this pathetic individual, please, Bob, and once more I shall refrain from insulting you . . .
I find it helps to know exactly what it is that you say that I am saying.
Mr Fred
As I understand it one of the advantages of Super Bainite is despite it being a ‘Low cost hard steel’ it retains something of the shatter resistence and ductility of mild steel.
Most armoured vehicles until, recently, have been made of Aluminium or RHA steel or some combination of the both. Super Bainite (and I accept for perfectly good reasons the manufatures are tightlipped as to its true capabilities) will be no more brittle that that.
The CVRT point is a good one.
I for one have never been a fan of the ‘We’ve always done it that way so that the way it should be done’ school.
But Reconascence by stealth, and enhanced tactical manouvreability, is one school, the fighting for it is the other.
CVRT for all it’s faults (in my view keeping it in service for way to long , it should have been replaced a decade ago); has been so just goddam useful to the UK, preciciely because of it’s size and weight.
Of course it could do with more armour and a better gun, but surely we could do something within say the 15 tons and/ 2.3 -2,4 metre width that makes it containerable, and transportable by common commercial chassis…
BTW
anyone got any photos of inside a terrier?
@ Percontator, further
“No tables” makes posting a bit tedious, but I’ll try again (re Warriors going into the future):
– 340 turret upgraded IFVs
– 70 “half-upgrades” for hot places (IFVs)
– 244 special use versions, as per current (or planned specs; the latter including what RA wants (I used “wish” as a parallel expression)
… why do they want the two vehicle team config? To put new options firmly on the menu, as (and because!) heavy arty is declining in numbers: Forward air control, downloading live video from such sources (and UAVs), GPS-targeting for precision munitions and (long-range GMLRS)…
So, using your numbers (available as well as required by formations) we got
– some bridge layers (new conversion, but to save on FRES budget for other uses)
– a decent float (initially for staying long in these conversions, the for normal maintenance and wear and tear)
– and a “steer” as to what would be the minimum FRES SV order (assuming no Scimitar life extension and only a limited order for the new “combo” design)
In these numbers (past Bulldog but before being more specific about how the FRES order forms itself for further batches):
– no mortar crews armour protected (did Bulldog upgrade extend to these versions?)
– no battle field ambulances (use the CVR(T) related versions for longer?)
Pete,
The point has already been repeated, now stopping trying to pick fights over typos and start arguing the point, it is clearly laid out in the post above your last one. Just to be clear, the point was that WSCP still needs to happen, Warrior does not have a new turret yet.
Ixion,
The notion that CVRT is stealthy is silly, its profile may be smaller but it still makes noise, can still be spotted with thermal imagers and the naked eye and still leaves track marks. And to make the point yet again, the recce regiments will have two squadrons of ASCOD-SV and one squadron of Jackal/Foxhound to provide that light capability. It has been useful by virtue of the fact that it has been in service in large numbers not because it is small. It was planned to be replaced in the early nineties but the money was buying AS90s, Warriors, and Challengers. FV432 should also be long gone but the Warrior programme fell from 1,900 to under 800 and now we have 900 Bulldog Mk3s rolling around. I agree it is truly shameful, made even more so by the decision to deconstruct the indigenous design and development capability.
Anyone know what sort of blast tests have been conducted on ASCOD-SV? Are we talking AT mine or big IED or something in between?
Changed mind.
Can no longer be bothered.
Bob, you win. You are so right and everyone else is a fool. Enjoy your victory and I hope you keep ypur job when FRES-SV is, inevitably, cancelled.
Which will be a shame since even a polished turd is better than no new vehicles.
Ixion said: “15 tons in Afghan is worth any number of 50 tons in a shed in Britain”
While I completely understand your point – it is a rather perverse argument – “two wrongs don’t make a right” as my mother used to say.
Having a smaller lighter vehicle that does not meet some requirements, say protection for example, but is actually in theatre available – OK, totally get it, honest. However what your suggesting is actually making an excuse for lack of planning, lack of budget and lack of decision making by political over-lords.
“Dear National Security Committee, we don’t want to pay the shipping costs to get our most excellent shiny vehicles into theatre, so we want you to sign off on sending these re-built 40 year old bits of shit instead, because they’re smaller, lighter and cheaper to freight…..”
Pete,
You are funny, that is just one Warrior with a demonstration turret, WCSP has yet to be undertaken. Even more amusingly that picture shows the BAE turret which has since been rejected by the MoD.
Also, let us both be clear that you are leaving this discussion because you have been proven wrong on multiple occasions and all your sweeping unsubstantiated assertions have been proven false through the application of facts. And we are still waiting for your explanation as to why ASCOD-SV is a polished turd because you have yet to provide any evidence.
SCOD-SV blast tests: http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/news/general%20dynamics%20uk%20successfully%20tests%20ascod%20sv%20armour%20system
Not surprisingly the exact nature of such tests is not made public.
Bob
Costs
Stop double counting. WCSP is committed according to SecState, therefore the only additional cost will be for a new engine and gearbox. The cost of which you claim will be well over a billion pounds.
On what basis?
Numbers
Your argument is specious. Do you think SDSR will go away if you ignore it?
percontator,
The government is not committed to it in a financial sense until it signs a contract, there has been no contract signature thus no money has changed hands and the £1 billion has not been spent. WCSP is £1 billion for 449 vehicles and that contract has not been signed, no double counting at all just facts. I challenge you find me a contract award for WSCP procurement.
Sorry I changed my post before I saw you had commented, Bob.
ArmChairCivvy
You appear to be suggesting that my numbers do not allow for WR mortars, ambulances etc. That may turn out to be the case but not on the basis of your argument.
The 2008 numbers were pre-SDSR and pre-WFM.So, the fact that 59 WR were in RA version in 2008 and that now RA want to double the number of OPVs (per battery or per regiment?)does not lead to 2×59 being the required number. Please specify, in your scenario how many OPVs the RA will require per field regiment.
Bob
Resorting to pedantry does not further your argument. Either we go ahead with WCSP or ASCOD replaces WR. If you have evaluated your stance on this can you let us know.
You have yet to address my query regarding your £1 billion estimate for new gearbox and engine for WR.
You seem still to be closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears to avoid the reality that is SDSR.
Bob obviously isn’t getting his information from the interweb or reading Janes. I agree with his assertion that he is bringing some facts to this debate. It seems whenever someone coughs up a fact that doesn’t fit into some sexy AFV fantasy or into a scenario that over compensates for limited resources people get spiteful here. Yes Tony is a respected author and I’ve seen him give as good as he gets on other forums so don’t fight his battles for him. Bob has argued constantly, he has put effort into his replies, he has bought some realism to the debate and not a faux “we can’t afford anything” paradigm that prevails throughout this site. And all he gets from some here, and i stress some, are childish attacks and toys being thrown from a pram. No wonder he gets exasperated.
Even I who knows next to nothing about AFVs knows that FRES SV envisages more vehicles than there are currently Warrior chassis available. I don’t see how anyone can argue that square peg into that round hole.
Whilst a lot of good point have been raised here thare has also been a fair bit of wishfull thinking. With the 2010 SDSR, “Jam tomorrow” became the UK’s official policy for the Armed Forces, and wholy dependant on the 2-3% year on year budget increase post 2015. THe next SDSR in 2015 will call the Politicians bluff on this and I am not very optimistic.
Another question is what will be the Army’s procurement priorities post Afghanistan. Well WCSP seems to be quite high up but the opposite may be the case for FRES(SV). My own feeling is that what was FRES(UV) will resurface as the need to re-equip units and replace obsolete and worn out platforms such as the FV430 series and the vast majority of platforms purchased under UORs for Afghanistan hits home. On the face of it we have been using the CVR(T) series as light armour rather than recce for years and the WCSP will fulfill this role in most cases.
IF the MRBs are to be realised by 2020 then a Boxer type vehicle will have to be the Army’s highest ptiority and considering the numbers required, will take up a large chunck of available funding.
Airmobilty is a nice to have dream but it’s priority will way down the list as the past decade has made protection a far higher requiement than being airtransportable.
Turning to Recce, does every MEB need a full Recce Regiment? I think not, but rather each component regiment with have a Recce element included in its organisation, and at brigade level there will be additional intergral ISTAR assets such as UAVs and also access to further resouces.
We must not think of the MRBs as traditionally rolled brigades. Until the 2015 SDSR their make up will not be known and even then maybe not. IF funding is not forthcoming we may again have to downsize our aspirations as to what we can deploy, maybe even down to a single Regimental sized Battlegroup for deplyments with a surge up to Brigade level, severely limiting our ability to operate alone.
So FF2020 and FRES is dependant on new money after 2015. Who is willing to bet their house that the required money will be there?
Jed
I consider it being a realist.
The Uk’s logistical performance has been crap.
Your not wrong, about two wrongs making right (Eh, hope that sentence makes sence)?! However I would rather deal with the world as it is..
BOB
I did not say CVRT was invisable! But neither is Fres SV armoured like Challanger. You pays your money….
Likewise I do think CVRT is shagged and obsolecent, one of the reasons it’s available is that it was cheaper than the big stuff…
I’ll do you a deal, You bring Fres SV I’ll bring CVRT, and we will try and cross the Wampool North of Wigton between there and the Solway, (after I am allowed to blow one small bridge)…
That’s only about 14 square miles of marshy ground with a small river through it.
PLEASE turn down the aggression, it realy does not help your arguements.
Lets just agree to differ.
Some think Ascod/FRES/Scout is the best thing on planet Earth.
Others of us do not believe that.
Some think deployability is important, others do not.
Some think Ascod good value, others do not & want to look at alternatives.
Whatever is said here will be ignored in the cat like decision making of the MoD/Treasury.
I think that there is merit in the idea of a recce regiment within a brigade. This is the force that screens the advance of the main force, secures routes and makes feints in other directions. The embedded recce units of the main force are then for tactical recce and immediate route proving. Perhaps not a full regiment, but a substantial unit nonetheless.
Ixion,
A quick google search indicates that Super bainite is more brittle than RHA, much less mild steel. It’s pretty good compared to other high-hardness steels, but it is still in the high-hard (and hence brittle) area. Aluminium and RHA haven’t stood still and there are some new and interesting alloys out there
Wow! I have posted about half a dozen times that the premise of EITHER WR upgrade OR FRES SV is wrong – and misguiding this debate to a degree (not that I would not like to hear all the arguments)
The premise is wrong,
-because of overall budget frame, not just the army = string out new procurements at least out to mid-2020’s, and make current kit last is the inescapable conclusion
– because the number of available Warriors makes some FRES order unavoidable
– not all scouts need to FRES SVs as has been pointed out (say, 2/3? Why would the scouting element in an AI bn not be the same platform that is used by the rest of the bn – in the end, it is a sub-unit, not an all-out specialised formation (and the light platforms,too, may be even some of the offspring of scimitars; the Combo, in addition to wheeled)
– not all of the initial FRES SV order will be Scouts (some will serve directly with them, though)
– some of the specialised versions envisaged for early ISD will not happen (or will happen much later) as conversions can – and therefore will – fill the capability gap cheaper
– watch this happen:
1. the initial (funded) FRES SV order will be in low hundreds
2. they will come in as a trickle and WR life goes onto 2035 – in various life forms (and there is over-demand for these conversions)
3. all of the MI platforms will need replacing by 2035 – we are talking bigger numbers here; therefore the UV order or similar will only be placed somewhere around half way from here to that date
“The government is not committed to it in a financial sense until it signs a contract, there has been no contract signature thus no money has changed hands and the £1 billion has not been spent. WCSP is £1 billion for 449 vehicles and that contract has not been signed, no double counting at all just facts. I challenge you find me a contract award for WSCP procurement.”
This seems like a particularly week argument, for it to stand up it requires that a full production contract already be signed for FRES SV, which unless it is being kept under wraps has not happened yet, therefore both FRES SV and WCSP are in the limbo of being programmes that we understand are going ahead but without a contract in place. Furthermore, if you look at the empirical evidence, Liam Fox says it will be funded then it is , as evidenced by the fact he said 14 Chinook’s would be purchased and the contract has been signed, then WCSP is going ahead.
With regard to CRV(T) and the suggestion light scouting role will be filled by something other than CRV(T) – why the hell are we UOR upgrading cut and shut CRV(T)’s if we plan to use them for less that three years in Afghanistan unless we are planning to keeping them in the medium term?
Hi Ixion, can I come, too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNLlQDqyPB4
Hi JH,
RE “Some think Ascod good value, others do not & want to look at alternatives”
– there have been good numbers presented to this debate, but they tend to be total contract numbers, which contracts all have different scopes
– I long to see hard unit costs. I expect it to be the normal nightmare: much lower (firm) orders than expected will suddenly give much higher unit prices
“The Uk’s logistical performance has been crap.”
We are supporting a campaign thousands of miles from home. We either have to move equipment by air or over land through Pakistan. Despite this huge LOC we have built an ENORMOUS and extremely well appointed Joint Operating Base in Helmand, we have built a large and very well appointed Main Operating Base in Lash and 3 further Main Operating Bases. From these a further network of around a hundred Patrol Bases, OPs, CPs and FOBs s supported. All are well equipped, well fed, well looked after and well supplied with ammunition and defence stores.
Logistics? Crap?! I’m sure the soldier currently enjoying the huge new DFAC in JOB Bastion with its 7 LCD TVs after going to the new huge Gym would disagree with you. As will the Tom in OP NOWHERE who gets Chinook drops of mail and fresh food on a fortnightly basis as well as plentiful rations, fuel and engineering stores.
Then we threw another LOC out for ELLAMY.
Not crap logistics at all. It couldn’t be further from the truth. No it is not all perfect, but you will never see that in war. It works incredibly well and it works despite a lot of enemy effort toward wanting it not to.
“why the hell are we UOR upgrading cut and shut CRV(T)’s if we plan to use them for less that three years in Afghanistan unless we are planning to keeping them in the medium term?”
Three years is a long time to struggle on when better kit, no matter how heath robinson, is potentially available.
I imagine this kit is being funded from the UOR budget, which isn’t a budget, more a blank cheque. As it should be.
Sorry, sounded a bit strong on the UOR CRV(T) for Afghanistan – however, surely it would be the first upgrade of existing equipment which would be phased out of service shortly after Afghanistan (as Bulldog and Warrior will carry on in service for quite a while after 2015 if I got my information correct)
Ixion:
Ref: “That’s only about 14 square miles of marshy ground with a small river through it.”
So isn’t that why we have:
1. Infantry Recce teams
2. Helicopters
3. UAV’s
4. Amphibious capable vehicles such as BVS10, Viking, Supacat ATMP……….
5. Fast Air with Recce pods
6. Slow air (?) with various capabilities
7. airborne surveillance radar
Because some terrain befits certain approaches, and others requires different. Just ask the Marines if you can borrow their hovercraft……
We could argue this 7 ways from sundown.
But we only got thru G1 with huge support from US.
We needed a lot of help with G2
Too many tails of soldiers withou bullets etc.
In afghan most of the stuff is shifted by local contractors trhu pakistan. In thetre untill recently it has been poor with FOB’s being short of proper modern support.
ArmChairCivvy
You say “Because the number of available WR makes some FRES order unavailable”.
That assertion may or may not be true. I have asked you to (in part)substantiate it but you have not done so.
Even if there are not enough WR to meet all requirements it does not follow that ASDOD-SV is the only answer as there are alternatives such as Sphinx.
Sorry I posted that last Phil post NOT Phil sorry for any confusion Mea Culpa etc etc
I said ” string out new procurements at least out to mid-2020′s, and make current kit last is the inescapable conclusion
– because the number of available Warriors makes some FRES order unavoidable”
Do you agree or disagree?
There is also a lot more to the Warrior numbers than just the highly visible IFV part of it
– do you have any views for this part of the fleet (or what else could cost-effectively do those jobs)
If you don’t, I’ll come back to you when we discuss the numbers in army structure context
– or do you perhaps have a view (at least an opinion?)
There’s the forest and the trees…
Jed
Of course we cannot equipe the army just for invading Scotland or selected bits of cumbria, but I still say a lot of the world is not covered by motorways, and has a lot of incoveniently placed rivers, trees, mountains, locals etc.
Just because our last 2 bigticket wars were in Iraq – Does not mean the next one will be after all we did not take cheiftans and Abbots to the Falklands…
ArmChairCivvy
I disagree, unless you can convince me otherwise.
The numbers I provided for WR were for the whole fleet as I stated.
I presented my view in my first posting on this subject.
I look forward to a discussion on army structure.
We are of course not the only ones with the problem (DID 28 August):
“Bradley first entered US Army service in 1981, however, and the fleet has served through several wars. Even ongoing RESET, modernizations, and remanufacturing cannot keep them going indefinitely.
The Army’s problem is that replacing them has been a ton of trouble. Future Combat Systems’ MGV-IFV was terminated, along with the other MGV variants, by the 2010 budget. A proposal to replace it with a “Ground Combat Vehicle” (GCV) program raised concerns that the Army’s wish list would create an even less affordable solution.
Now a revised GCV program is underway. Can it deliver a vehicle that will be effective on the battlefield? Just as important, can it deliver a vehicle that the US Army can afford to buy and maintain”
– Bradley, Stryker, GCV (x 3, and counting…)
– when the bidders revealed their experts in design team, they were all from US Army heavy brigades
– here we talk medium armour, and don’t end up at 70 t but 30-40. BTW, it is GD who are building the 60 t Namer IFVs at their Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH. (This allows Israel to purchase them with American military aid dollars granted by the Camp David Peace accords … and to NOT slow down their own production of Merkava IV’s)
Hi percontator,
Now I know where you stand, and that is fine, as in
“I disagree, unless you can convince me otherwise.
The numbers I provided for WR were for the whole fleet as I stated.
I presented my view in my first posting on this subject.
I look forward to a discussion on army structure.”
… actually, we’ve already had some (I’ll bore others by copying it from another thread. As you can see, I was impressed at your insights… until I found it all on Wiki, under the links to various strategic reviews):
___________________________
1. August 23, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Hi Phil,
At some point we will be moving to a summary of the army thread and I have looked at the BG strengths as envisaged in the BA, and elsewhere in the world. We are not at the summary stage yet, but I would see (as the MRB remains as nebulous as ever)that each one would include the “hard fist” of an armoured battle group:
1. capable of traversing 300 km with internal support, and then battle ready, even for offensive operations
2. being about 1900 in overall strength, ie. slightly bigger than an infantry-centric BG (a la EU)
3. HQ elements 30 +230, the latter for signals , medical and a recce coy
4. MBT element of 38, plus another ten Scouts in standard, mast and protected mobility configurations
5. An AI element of about the same number of IFVs (improved Warriors that is to be) as under “4″
6. CS with a Sqn of CE, Artillery in SPG (,Light Gun) and GMLRS; combinations by battery (6 tubes or GMLRS fire units) as appropriate. SHORAD comes under this category as well
7. CSS Logistics as assigned
1900 is a big part of the 5000+ but then again bns are very small in numbers. If you break down a CE Rgmnt to the three operative parts you get over 200 from the 800 total, which would seem like an overkill for this Battle Group. Then again, SHORAD is dimunative in numbers of manpower, a couple of man-portable launchers or more fixed Rapier mounts in today’s terms.
Just some food for thought…If we have independent bn’s, the MRB can deploy without this BG, if not required, and the “hard fist” can combine with another, to form an armoured bde (which, in name, will have been abolished)
—————————
2. ArmChairCivvy
August 24, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Re-reading this thread “backwards” I came a cross a real gem, I won’t quote the conclusions (just the build up, slightly rearranged):
”
percontator
June 9, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Future Army Structure (FAS), was an initiative introduced in 2004 (Mike Jackson as CGS)…
@ percontator
“Perhaps more significantly the British Army has now adopted Whole fleet management (WFM). This means that only units on operations or at the high readiness phase of the cycle will be fully equipped, other units having only small numbers for training. Given that each MRB will contain only 1 AI battalion it would seem sensible to assume that no more than 3 battalions worth of AI equipment will be required.”
As I am usually a number of light years behind with news about armoured vehicles, perhaps you could explain to me exactly when the policy of Whole Fleet Management was adopted by the British Army for its armoured fleet. I know that something similar has been in existence for The Royal Engineers’ “C” vehicles for some time now but I did not know that such an arrangement had extended to armour. Has the policy become official yet? Seems a bit drastic to say that we shall only need 3 battalions worth of kit for the 5 full Multi-Role Brigades!
Apart from raising that point, I would question some of your assumptions about numbers in other ways.
You are right about numbers in an Armoured Infantry Battalion (86 x 3 = 258).
You are right too in your number given for the reconnaissance troop of an Armoured Regiment (8 Scimitar) but you appear to forget the numbers of other CVR(T) variants in such a formation. In RHQ there are 7 CVR(T)s (Sultan, Spartan and Samaritan variants) and 1 Spartan variant in each of the Squadron HQ, making another 4. Then there is another Samaritan in the Admin troop. So I make that another 12 CVR(T)s in each regiment. That adds up to another 36 (12 x 3) even for your 3 battalions’ worth, which I think is an under-estimate.
Similarly you rather under-estimate the number of CVR(T) in a formation Reconnaissance Regiment. Your figure of 68 is presumably just the figure for the 3 Recce Squadrons in each and is about right. However, there are another 8 vehicles in the RHQ of each regiment. Therefore another 8 x 3 for your MRBs, making 24. I don’t know how many more are in the Command and Support Squadron or the HQ squadron but possibly a few more.
So already we have another 60 vehicles needed. Then there are the Warriors required for Royal Artillery use, say another 40. That brings us to another 100 Warriors needed, so you can add that to your 510, making 610. Then there are the numbers needed for the training of unit not on operations or at high readiness (see your own words: “other units having only small numbers for training”)
Now you might think that this is all very pernickety and pedantic. However, the published figures for the modernisation of Warrior state only 449 vehicles for the Manned Turret Improvement Programme and 143 for the Armoured Battlefield Support Programme, making a total of 592. Is your theory that we shall have enough Warriors for a “viable solution” beginning to look more than a bit shaky? My mention of the numbers of variants which you appear to have omitted is intended to lend force to Bob’s argument that FRES-SV is not a scout vehicle, it is a base platform for a family of specialised vehicles of which a Scout vehicle is just one. I do not think that you have been disingenuous with the figures, simply that you have under-calculated the numbers needed, especially variants. I think a new vehicle will be needed.
@ACC
Sorry I didn’t get back to you on the subject of figures the other day. I was stricken down with a virus and have been “hors de combat” for a few days. A lot has been said since that time on the subject of numbers, so I’m afraid that the above will have to serve as my view on the topic, for now anyway.
Have we reached the limit with ARV platform hardware. A bit like the gun, billions have been spent trying to improve it but said improvements have been too small to justify the cost.
Basic vehicles can be made to last decades it is the systems fitted that need to change. The CVR(T) has done the Army proud, but its use away from the European Theatre has shown it to have little growth potential and has been maxed out but all the in theatre mods. that have been embodied and a larger platform is needed.
If FF2020 states the MRB needs a full Recce Regiment then it is going to be more a recce by fire organisation than a slowly slowly catchy monkey outfit. If that is the case then the idea of Armoured Cavalry comes to mind and has been referred to in other threads. This would meen a Hybrid Heavy Armour/Medium Armour Regiment as the tip of the MRBs spear. Following would be 3-4 Medium/Mechanised Regiments each with integral Recce and long Range ATGW and possibly a MGS. at the back would be SP Artillery with GPS munitions of both the unitary and submunition dispencer varieties and CAS from UCAVS, Helicopter Gunships and fixed wing assets. Such formations would be able to handle most precieved operations except old Cold War Massed armoured battles but I believe these are a thing of the past as the systems envisaged in the 80s and 90s for dealing with these have now matured.
Some people seem confused about this so let us have some facts instead of silly unsubstantiated statements about cost and weight etc.
1) FRES-SV development phase has been signed, it is valued at £500 million and will produce seven prototypes that will undergo trials ready for a production order in 2014/15 if it goes ahead. That £500 million is sunk money depending on any contract clauses allowing cancellation
2) FRES-SV recce block 1 has been quoted as 589 vehicles for £1.5 billion
3) WSCP is £1 billion for 449 vehicles and does not touch the automotive train, this gives a unit cost just £320,000 cheaper than FRES-SV recce block 1 yet FRES-SV provides new build vehicles with all the future growth potential that Warrior does not have and a brand new automotive chain
4) WSCP has not been signed for and the MoD has made no financial commitment so that £1 billion has not been spent yet and the programme could still be terminated with minimal financial loss
5) Deployability; this has been beaten to death, FRES-SV will be entirely deployable, just as Warrior, Trojan, AS90 and Challenger have all been- nobody here has demonstrated credibly that it will not be deployable
6) Weight; the vehicle will spend most of its life at approximately 30 tonnes, roughly the same as the Bradley M3 used in the same recce role by the US Army. As if that was not enough the recce regiments will have a light recce squadron equipped with Jackal or Foxhound in addition to the two FRES-SV squadrons: weight is not an issue
7) The point of FRES-SV is not to provide a recce vehicle, at most 270 will be the recce variant, it is intended to provide a common base platform for a family of vehicles to replace the CVRT family, simply replacing the recce vehicles with upgraded Warriors does not remove the need for FRES-SV
8) The pre-SDSR planning called for 1,300 FRES-SV vehicles and 449 Warriors under WCSP for a total of 1,749 vehicles, the British Army only ever received 789 Warriors and the army is not being reduced in size by over 50% suggesting that without a massively disproportionate cut in the armour fleet the existing Warrior inventory could never meet the needs of both FRES-SV and remaining IFV requirement. Not to mention the high cost of WCSP and the potential need to replace its automotive chain
Evening chaps, am back in the saddle so will be joining the debate shortly
So,to close on Warrior numbers put in the missing two AI bn’s worth, 132 that is, give RA the extra 40 they want (perhaps not the 59, I was just using ready-made numbers):
… so where are we; @ 780? units vs 590 (or even a hundred less, just thinking about all the numbers floated for the planned upgrades)= THE GAP
then minus 245 FRES Scouts (hurrah if it is 270!)
then minus 122.5 protected mobility variants
————-
get the book keepers required balance, close enough to +/- zero
then throw in the light elements (might vary by brigade?)
then have the final worked out balance + 10 % float(?) between all the elements (there might be a sprinkling of doctrine development thrown in, but let’s face it: It is very much make-do, and only topping up where gaping gaps appear)
Ref: MW’s piece, counting in a bottom-up fashion
Then there are the Warriors required for Royal Artillery use, say another 40. That brings us to another 100 Warriors needed, so you can add that to your 510, making 610. Then there are the numbers needed for the training …
However, the published figures for the modernisation of Warrior state only 449 vehicles for the Manned Turret Improvement Programme and 143 for the Armoured Battlefield Support Programme, making a total of 592
————
My understanding of the WFM is that it does not affect total numbers, but those in active use out of this total, because then a smaller number of units need to be constantly seen to, in more concentrated locations (using maintenance and repairs capacity to the full, rather than having “islands” everywhere with 50% slack in utilization of manpower, machinery, facilities…)
First off, welcome to our new contributors and although things can get a bit heated I think we can all agree that TD is a pretty mellow place that accommodates different viewpoints so please, if we can, lets’ keep the tone on an even keel.
Reading all the comments it is clear, to me anyway, that FRES Specialist Vehicle is a programme that elicits strong opinions, like CVF, because it is fundamental to the future of the Army’s A Vehicle fleet and many of the strategic visions such as the future character of conflict work that drive doctrine that drive design will come true but some will not. We are therefore in the difficult position of picking winners in the future.
When we look at the underlying choices it is obvious that the lightweight, sneak around finding the enemy has been relegated to the sidelines whilst a more powerful ‘fight for the information’ approach taken. This represents a radical change in direction for the Army as previous studies such as FFLAV and TRACER were driven by stealth.
This is a fair enough decision to make, Western nations are becoming more casualty averse and weapons more lethal.
However, this decision has implications and going heavy does not come with a neutral price tag.
The CVR(T) concept relied on high mobility, exceptionally low ground pressure, low total weight, small dimensions, low noise and high speed to provide it with a degree of protection. If things got a bit hairy then it could always rely on its big brother providing overwatch; Striker and Swingfire. This overwatch concept was also carried into TRACER but instead of Swingfire it was armed with Hellfire/Brimstone.
We should also observe that CVR(T) was most often not used for the recce role but as a light tank. We must not forget this because it represents reality.
Deployability was a key design criteria because when it was designed air portability was important, the thinking being that we would be involved lots of empire draw down style fights.
Fast forward past our abortive FFLAV and TRACER studies and we have the FRES vision which has gone through so many revisions and reworks its impossible to find any coherence. The debacle of UV and MRAV has resulted in a risk averse MoD that coupled with the decimation of the UK armoured vehicle industry means that a low risk solution is the inevitable result.
Just to address a few points…
Deployability
It seems deriguer to deride deployability as a design factor, we hear calls of stop dreaming about air portability for example as if that makes the person saying it sounds clever. It does not and betrays a clear lack of understanding. Air portability is a key design driver that we ignore at our peril, it is easy to buy extra aircraft, its not easy to design and deploy an air portable vehicle. The degree of priority given to this is a fair enough discussion though.
On a one to one replacement ration moving from 10 to 30 tonnes has real implications for strategic and tactical mobility.
Have a look at this post for details on the details
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/the-future-of-the-british-army-08-%e2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-03-a-not-so-sensible-future/
There are a number of issues on mobility that should not be so easily dismissed
Aping the US
Yes the US use the M3 Bradley but they have never been happy with it and if you read any analysis of operations in Iraq this was reinforced. In fact, they were often replaced by M1’s. In situations where you decide to fight for information there is no substitute for an MBT. If there is a lesson here, this should be the one we take, heavy recce needs a tank, not an MICV or MICV derivative because in the teeth of of MBT’s and infantry armed with RPG’s and ATGW’s the MICV remains vulnerable.
In General and Cost
I have written a lot about FRES and I am always in two minds, I know its going to be very good, I know its going to be better than the alternative and I know it will provide many options but I equally worry about the size and weight uplift, the resultant lack of strategic and tactical mobility and the serious lack of technical ambition.
Look at TRACER and associated projects, we have been sent worrying into the corner marked safe.
FRES will have very little export potential and is so conservative all we are actually getting is a modern Warrior and a handful of variants.
I would expect any new vehicle to have GVA or a Catherine TI, after all, we have paid for the development work already. Boasting about having an under armour laser designator or using an MTU engine is fine to a point but where is the ambition, no hybrid power, no modern suspension, no composite armour, no elevating sensor, no band tracks, no blast chimneys, no SIGINT, no etc etc
I rail against the costs because whilst Puma might have cost more to develop, it started from scratch. FRES SV does not start from scratch and if you read GD’s own literature, the prototype will be lifted straight off the Santa Barbara production line. I wonder exactly what we are getting for half a billion pounds when all we seem to be doing is pimping my Pizarro. Spain managed to get a brand new design and 350 production vehicles for £800mil
Is half a billion a good price, not sure to be honest, but it does sound rather expensive
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/second-hand-news/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/fres-what-might-have-been/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/fres-heres-one-we-made-earlier/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/the-future-of-the-british-army-06-%e2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-02-a-sensible-future/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/the-future-of-the-british-army-06-%e2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-01/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/a-brief-history-of-fres/
ArmChairCivvy
It is quite clear where I stand. I laid out my proposal in my first posting.
You queried some of my numbers and I in turn asked for some clarification (RA requirements for OPVs)which you have not provided.
I do not claim to possess insight but avidly read as many sources as I can find. In this case those sources did NOT include Wikipedia.
You suggested discussing this topic in the context of army structure. I merely gave what was intended to be a polite reply. It is not clear to me what point you are trying to make with your quotations from other threads.
Sorry, your new thread loaded while I was writing this.
ArmChairCivvy,
I had forgotten about the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles, with those included I understood the total WCSP requirement to be 643 (only 449 get new turrets) which would reduce the unit cost, down to £1.5 million without touching the drivetrain. It does however shift the numbers game the other way as that puts the pre-SDSR requirement at 1,943 vehicles in total which further underlines the importance of new platforms entering the inventory.
The vehicle will be air transportable. I however see almost no utility in using AFVs in a TALO scenario with the resources available. Therefore this requirement should have no serious influence on the design. The vehicle will be air transportable and that gives a certain amount of flexibility but not a great deal if your supply and parts line still has to go over sea and land. It’s a very limited role and the vehicle should not be unreasonably compromised to fill it. The logistics severely limits the air deployability of any vehicle.
Think Defence,
Air deployability IS all but dead as a concept, it is not being taken seriously anywhere except for a few die-hards. As others here have pointed out even if a vehicle was designed that would allow it the airlift capacity does not exist to make it happen. Air lifting armour is just not going to happen in any meaningful way. A vehicles tactical mobility is defined not simply by its weight but by its power to weight ratio and its ground pressure. ASCOD-SV will have excellent power to weight ratio (805 hp engine should translate into reasonable speed) and one can only assume that ground pressure will be kept at a reasonable level. That only leaves the issue of bridges, the vehicle should come with substantial fording capability (Warrior can do 1.3m) and ultimately that is also why there are combat support elements. And just make the point again the Recce regiments in a multirole brigade will have a light recce squadron with Foxhound or Jackal in addition to the two ASCOD-SV squadrons.
ASCOD-SV is not a modern Warrior, Warrior is an MICV and will remain in that role, there is no MICV variant of FRES-SV. And that is just for starters. In some ways FRES-SV is a more ambitious programme than Warrior ever was, Warrior came with a play it safe (but borderline useless) armament (compare to 40mm CTA) and avoided the desired Chobham armour, FRES-SV is at least pushing for the best of what is currently available on the market and it will have semi-active suspension. And that Pizzaro is getting considerable modifications, uprated engine, new low profile turret, GVA, new bespoke appliqué armour package (with composite) and enhanced suspension amongst others.
FRES-SV may be evolutionary rather than revolutionary it is still at the very top of the evolutionary curve. The problem with ambition is that it is expensive, that £500 million is $819 million, the US DoD expects to spend $7.6 billion on R&D through through to 2017 on GCV and that is a programme where they do not want to push technology too far, in that light it is not especially expensive. As a benchmark, the last time the UK undertook a MAJOR armoured vehicle development programme was Challenger 2 and its development cost £115.6 million (1989 sterling, 22 years ago) including both government and industry funding and that vehicle was not especially ambitious either. A more minor programme was Terrier which bought 60 vehicles for £300 million but it should be remembered that they were both single variant programmes. Modern high quality armoured vehicles are expensive. It is also not just the UK playing it safe, Canada is, the Swedes basically killed SEP, Land 400 in Australia looks unlikely to generate anything innovative and the vehicles being looked at under Project Scorpion in France look relatively middle of the road.
As for exportability, UK armoured vehicles have had a torrid time on the export market since the early 90s, only Kuwait bought the Warrior and only Oman bought Challenger 2 and both in limited numbers despite extensive sales campaigns. Jordan does not count as its Challenger 1s were secondhand. Perhaps if we went back in time and found another £1 billion in the late 80s and acquired the Alvis Stormer for FLAV things might have been different, but we are where we are.
Dear TD – welcome back.
One question, how does ranting about lack of ambition and innovation align with previous posts and comments railling against the MoD / services desire to gold plate everything?
Having asked that, i totally agree about what we are (or are not) getting for the cost !!!
The most shocking revelation of this thread though, is Bob’s assertion that the Formation recce regt. will be reduced to only 2 “Sabre Squadrons” ! So we are enshrining the Herrick setup of replacing the third armoured squadron with a BRF of “protected” wheeled vehicles – frakkin nightmare…….. ;-(
So no more than 32 FRES Scoutper regiment and a bunch of wheeled vehicles that can’t match the same level of all terrain tactical mobility as the rest of the regiments tracked vehicles – neither nowt nor summat as we say up North………..
Thanks BOB,
Now we have a proper benchmark for comparing value ” would reduce the unit cost, down to £1.5 million without touching the drivetrain” for the Warrior upgrading.
The Bulldog upgrade programme was remarkably cheap (but I sure hope they stopped at the 500th that rolled out in May 2008, as per the link provided by Gabby).
We are agreed on new types being required. Terrier numbers were capped, because of cost. I hope that we won’t see a repeat in this context. The costs you are quoting sound encouraging; my worry is that the unit price might shift radically because of realities ( a production line is a production line and no manufacturer will sell without covering set-up and other fixed costs).
“So no more than 32 FRES Scoutper regiment and a bunch of wheeled vehicles ”
245+112(.5)= 357 (ignoring my earlier “joke”)
(5+1) x 32 = 292 (counting the TA Rgmnt in, but 16AAB element out); difference 65
Keep the FRR RHQs on current (specialised?) vehicles for a tad longer
Give the Arm. Rgmnt recce troops their 8 (x 5)
Difference = 25, call that my 10% float (WFM or no WFM) even though it does not quite reach 10%
– or do I have to increase the total number in my “speculated” initial FRES SV order?
– I expect mobility support to be covered by “interim” measures, and to be ordered as a later batch
I have to disagree on a few of your points Bob.
Air deployability is always taken seriously but will be given relatively different weighting but volume and weights will always be referenced against various limiting factors or break points, air portability is one of them. Air portability does not mean liftable by Wildcat though, there is a scale. I know full well that tactical mobility is defined by ground pressure and power to weight ratio, I think I cover it in detail on one of those links but the double pin tracks from Diehl that will be fitted to Scout will have no more area in contact with the ground than comparable vehicles such as Pizarro or Warrior so ground pressure will be high as we start going up the weight scale.
I always thought a lack of swimming capability in a recce vehicle was pretty important but and not all water obstacles are bounded by steep sides, fording is fine but again, this is a new vehicle, I would have expected some consideration given to this.
Your point about the only mobility issue left being bridges I also have to disagree with, especially the way it seems to have been casually dismissed because Scout can ford to a metre or so. Come on Bob, I know you know better!
Why did CVR(T) never have any engineering variant, bridges, trackways etc?
Because it didn’t need them but Scout will need the full range of bridging and trackway solutions just like Warrior which to me is at odds with its role. Have you read that post in which I look at mobility by the way.
There are many many penalties in going heavy, now they might be worth paying in the overall context but please lets not pretending they don’t exist.
Sorry again Bob, but to say that Scout is not a modern Warrior or MICV is dancing on the head of a pin.
It is exactly that, a modernised Warrior/CV90/Bradley/Pizarro etc etc. Yes it has all the latest bits and bobs, mostly, but it is an entirely conventional design, completely lacking in innovation or ambition. Say the tooth fairy woke up one morning and asked us all if we would like a Warrior replacement, how would Scout measure up, I suspect it would fit our requirements like a glove. Its a modern MICV, a pimped up Pizarro that we are calling a Scout.
The other variants will be very simple, protected mobility a la Spartan, just take the turret off and job done, repair and recovery, already in service with Spain as many of the other variants are. Lets not kid ourselves about the complexity of the whole family and remind me what the half billion contract is for, are there any variants in that cost or is it just the scout and common base platform i.e. more cost to come from GD for ‘development’ or warming over already in service designs and calling that innovation
I agree with you that modern vehicle development is expensive but comparing Scout with GCV is a bit unfair, how about comparing it to the Polish Anders as an example.
Terrier is an interesting comparison, it actually has quite a complex role specific specification including some advanced features like remote operation but I also wonder how we might have exploited some of those sunk costs by developing the chassis into a Scout variant.
It was also designed from the ground up and the cost you mention includes all the production and in service logistics stuff.
So far, SV is costing £500 million for the development stage but NOT for all the variants and not a production vehicle in sight
You are right, we are where we are, perhaps the real tragedy in all of this is the complete mismanagement of A vehicle requirements by the Army, Governments and MoD.
It’s a sad tale of incompetence of the highest order.
Transformation. Revolution. Two words that have caused too much trouble in military circles over the last ten years. It is perfectly normal and acceptable to build evolutionary developments of existing armoured vehicles. It was perfectly normal and the preferred process in the States and the USSR. I did think FRES was gold plated but I have learned more and see that finally we are seeing some sense. I don’t want transformation. I don’t want revolutionary. I want solid evolution with solid capabilities and solid actual numbers. The bells and whistles don’t matter half as much as many would like you to think. Evolutionary development was always fine in the past and it is just as fine now. How it is used, how it is crewed and how it is supported are far more important factors. That vehicle will sit in amongst an organisation and how that organisation makes use of it is far more vital than some snazzy drive train.
As for weight the vehicle will be supplemented with others. You can’t have everything and trying to do this in one vehicle has killed more programmed across the world than any other. It is not sexy but it is perfectly sound doctrine.
Two FR Sqns per regiment has been normal for some years now.
This vehicle is a step in the right direction. Maybe it seems expensive but it is a massive programme and perhaps the costings are finally realistic from the outset. Especially if it is so de-risked.
RE: Warrior numbers and FRES SV
1) Royal Artillery experimented with a 2-vehicles solution for under-armor Fire Support Teams, but this option is not going to be pursued. A single, updated FV514 Warrior remains the solution HQ DRA aims to.
2) An Armoured Infantry Battalion needs 63 Warriors:
36 Infantry Section Warriors (FV510)
11 Infantry Section ATGW carriers (FV510 Milan carrier, now Javelin teams)
9 Infantry Command Vehicls (FV511)
4 Mechanized Recovery Vehicles (Repair)(FV513)
3 Mechanized Combat Repair Vehicles (FV512)
RA Variants:
Battery Command Vehicle (FV515)
Mechanized Artillery Observation Vehicle (FV515)
Total numbers originally acquired:
FV510: 489 (105 of these are ATGW carriers)
FV511: 84
FV512: 105 (FV512 are so numerous because they are found in REME LAD detachments also outside the Armoured Infantry Battalions. Tank and Recce regiments have them, for example)
FV513: 39
FV514: 52
FV515: 19
Total: 788 (789?)
A few Warriors will have been lost/written off in the years. Namely, i remember the tragedy of a Warrior hit by a US Maverick missile in Iraq in a Blue on Blue accident. Other damaged vehicles are likely to have been written off and cannibalized, so in no way we can assume that the 700-more vehicles originally acquired are all still around.
The Army also has a requirement to raise a Fourth Rifle Company on mobilization for its Battalions, so that means having a reserve of Warriors (14 between FV510 and FV511 for the Company, plus additional ATGW section and Mortar section and related vehicles).
There is also training to consider, with all its needs.
BAE demonstrated to the Army a Warrior bridgelayer last year, and it could well be a cheap solution for the bridgelayer section of the FRES SV Maneuver Support, with the 60 Terriers being the rest of the MS fleet.
The Bridgelayer requirement is for some 35 vehicles.
But of the other Warrior hulls eventually available, before using them for FRES, i’d cover more urgent needs, such as the creation of a Warrior mortar-carrier (ideally i’d pursue the THOR concept of the Warrior with turret-mounted breech loading mortar) for use in the Armoured Infantry, so to finally retire the FV430 Mortar carriers.
In conclusion, i agree with the MOD’s assessment. The Warrior fleet cannot be stretched to meet the FRES SV requirement. At most, it can provide solutions for a few of the small requirements within FRES SV, as the Bridgelayer already mentioned.
But the sole FRES SV Recce Block 1 is a requirement for 580/600 vehicles, of which 245 to 270 Scout, a good portion of the rest Protected Mobility (APC) and then Recovery and Repair variants.
That is to be followed by around 144 RECCE Block 2 vehicles, specialized variants of the APC, for Engineer Reconnaissance, Joint Fires direction, and C2 for replacing Sultan.
RECCE Block 3 includes the ambulance and Unit Aid Post, possibly a Ground Based Surveillance vehicle (shown with mast-mounted sensors), an Higher Echelon Command Post and Communications vehicle, and even a Shielder replacement, a flatbed FRES SV with a Remote-Deployed Area Denial System, which should emerge from the Future Counter Mobility Capability studies. In total, up to 280 vehicles.
And then there is the famous Medium Armour-Direct Fire.
It is evident that numbers simply cannot stack up.
Thinkdefence,
Air mobility is just not an issue, it was a nice little fantasy for periods in the 90s but no vehicle with adequate protection is ever going to be airlifted in a meaningful way with the airlift capacity at hand- the best anyone can hope for id the lifting of small numbers of vehicles like Warrior was. I appreciate the sentiment but it is not going to happen.
I would love to see your figures for ASCOD-SV’s ground pressure if you have them. The reality is that ASCOD-SV will be able to go anywhere (and probably further) than Warrior or any of the other heavy armoured vehicles. And we keep forgetting that the recce regiments will include a light squadron with Foxhound or Jackal.
When one compares that £500 million to GCV or even Challenger II back in the day (the numbers I gave for those were just development and NOT procurement costs) it does really not look that expensive at all and GDUK is basically changing everything about the vehicle to meet UK requirements (engine, armour, turret, suspension, CIDS etc). £500 million does not seem unreasonable at all compared to GVC, Challenger II or Puma. And yet, you question the cost of ASCOD-SV only to demand that it should be revolutionary, something that would increase the cost exponentially and insert an enormous amount of risk into the programme.
Terrier is very interesting,
It was basically the last gasp of the indigenous British armoured vehicles industry and it showed that the UK could just about still design and develop indigenous armoured platforms. Equally however it was a troubled programme, costs rose dramatically (fortunately BAE was contractually obliged to absorb them) and its service entry was delayed by over three years. So far GDUK appears to be ahead of schedule with ASCOD-SV.
The issue that is in need of greatest critique is this. Why, having identified a need for over 3,000 armoured vehicles to be acquired through to 2035 (at which point Warrior, Challenger and one assumes AS90 were to start being replaced, thus ensuring continuous production), therefore making the UK one of the highest value armoured vehicle markets outside the US, did the MoD decide in the 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy that it would effectively continue the trend of de-constructing Britain’s armoured vehicles design and manufacture capability? Certainly this industrial base degradation had been going on for years but the DIS set it in stone as official policy. The consequences of this are clear for all to see, only now (a decade after 9/11) is the UK receiving its first (barely) indigenous mine protected vehicle in the form of Foxhound (a relatively simple 4×4 with mostly foreign components and design input). When the British Army really needed MRAPs it had to wait in line behind the US Army as their was no industry in the UK to make them. That disconnect between Army requirements and industrial policy is what really needs examining.
Bob, don’t have any figures for ground pressure but its a simple deduction, the track width and area in contact with the ground is fixed relative to an increasing weight so simple physics says the ground pressure will rise. Its not the only factor of course but it is an important one.
My point is not about the total cost but the value for money and return on investment, my spending more on pushing the boundaries out to something like TRACER (I lost opportunity of ever there was one) you pull through all kinds of follow on technology and spin offs each with export potential. This is why Typhoon or F35 might seem like poor value for money but taken at a national level, they are far from it. This is why FRES SV is such poor value for money, it costs a lot (arguably) yet adds nothing to the national technology base because it takes a collection of international and domestic off the shelf systems and stitches them together to create something that will be good, no doubt, but great, doubt it.
This is before we get to the discussion about weights and measures, doctrine and tactics.
Terrier was a from scratch system and like pretty much every like systems, was delayed and over price. It seems to be the norm
Given that FRES SV is a collection from the parts bin, I would expect it to be on time and with my cynical hat on, wonder how much contingency time has been built in to the programme, shed loads I suspect. just so we can all slap ourselves on the back for a project that bucks the trend
I agree wholeheartedly on the your last point, its tragic
“This is why FRES SV is such poor value for money, it costs a lot (arguably) yet adds nothing to the national technology base”
Why does it have to add anything to the national technology base whatever that may be? It is an AFV, designed for fighting. I’d far rather it be good at fighting than give private defence companies money to burn to develop their own bells and whistles which they will sell on.
This vehicle looks to be a solid vehicle, with a solid base, and a solid set of conceptions behind it. It seems massively de-risked and with plenty of development time. This is what we have wanted for some time. Revolutionary technology is incredibly risky and incredibly expensive and usually ends up as a product that is only revolutionary when you ignore the fact that the tech in it derives from failed programmes down the line.
We do not have any need for an uber-AFV. We need a solid bit of kit that we operate well and above all, we actually need to physically have that kit in reasonable numbers, which we will NOT have if we make a revolutionary vehicle. A revolutionary vehicle that will still be vulnerable to almost every modern ATGW and AT mine out there.
Phil, if we are supporting UK defence industries then at a national industrial strategy level, there has to be a return.
If we aren’t then we can proceed with a simple off the shelf purchase, so to get a solid vehicle in solid numbers we could go to any of the many international manufacturers and dispense with the half billion plus development contract. In fact, looking at the very rough unit prices for similar vehicles we might actually get a big chunk for that much.
The last published contract price for CV9035 was about £3.5million all in so 500 buys what, roughly 140
Interesting that don’t you think
I don’t mind either route
Thinkdefence,
Who said it is fixed? Wider tracks could be used if desired, I don’t think that is an assumption that we can make at the moment. ASCOD-SV may not give UK industry a new wonder technology but it will give GDUK CIDS and the vehicles design authority and IP will remain in the UK.
TRACER was not a lost opportunity, it was an abomination that was allowed to live too long. £1.2 billion (£1.54 billion in 2010) was spent by the UK (plus $6.1 billion by the US) and the programme was realistically nowhere near close to a production vehicle all for a programme that called for just 355 platforms for the British Army. Makes £500 million for ASCOD-SV (pre-SDSR requirement of 1,300 base platforms) look like a bargain. I am frankly at a loss as to why people think £500 million is expensive for a contract that will provide a highly evolved vehicle as a common base platform, 7 prototypes and sufficient trials to make it production ready. Especially when compared to TRACER, GCV, and Puma.
Thinkdefence,
Firstly “adding to the UK industrial base” as you put it is no guarantee of a return on investment, that product still has to compete internationally. GDUK has stated that ASCOD-SV and elements of it will be marketed abroad and its unit costs, based on the figures for recce block 1 will make it competitive.
The other issue with directly off-the-shelf is you will get a less capable vehicle and one not in all the variants that the UK wants. FRES-SV in its current form avoids wasting large sums of money on risky R&D programmes (TRACER) whilst providing what will be a market leading family of armoured vehicles. The MoD finally seems to have found a sensible balance between development investment and risk and based on current reporting a contractor that can stick to contracts.
Fair point on the tracks Bob, we don’t know, but I would hazard a guess they wont be any different than those fitted to the Pizarro 2
I actually think CIDS is the best thing on SV, likewise GVA, its about the most intelligent thing we have done in vehicle design for a long time but even that is not terribly innovative, its been in the automotive sector for a long long time
Not sure where you get £1.2billion for TRACER, are you confusing it with the wider FCS programme in the US. The published costs for our participation was £131 million as at 2001
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/a-brief-history-of-fres/
I know all the arguments against off the shelf, I agree with a lot of them but what variants of SV are not provided in CV90 or even Pizarro/Ulan, for example
I don’t think it is as simple as what variants we want. There will be bespoke requirements for each variant particular to the British Army and FRES-SV allows all those requirements to be met, presumably across a common platform which is tailored at the outset to meet them.
The more I think about it the more this programme makes sense based on what I know about it.
You delete a whole boat load of risk and costs by using kit in existence and evolving it and fully integrating other items from the start. You have a realistic programme, with realistic costs with realistic vehicle numbers and above all, a realistic prospect therefore of actually entering service and being a solid bit of kit.
£500M to essentially develop an extremely capable CVRT fleet replacement.
Bells and whistles are not the way to go.
History is full of revolutionary AFVs that failed and AFVs that look revolutionary and well costed until you realise most of the tech was actually developed for a failed programme.
We need a solid vehicle in good numbers and in good time.
Thinkdefence,
Apologies, £1.2 billion was the estimate for development and production of 355 units for the British Army. That estimate was made whilst the programme was still years from technical maturity (conversations with people involved in it are hilarious, it basically turned into a giant tax payer funded science experiment with no end point in sight- the notional in service date had already been pushed to October 2008). TRACER’s death was a good thing for the British taxpayer, it was far too ambitious from the outset and only provided a solution to the recce requirement not everything else.
If you are interested I have tracked down the original ASCOD development cost: The assessment phase was quoted as $215 million in 1994.
I think Phil has a good point, its a kind of middle ground and as I have said, I tend to be a bit double minded when talking about FRES
On one hand I see the benefits and all round sensible approach it takes as per this post
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/the-future-of-the-british-army-06-%E2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-02-a-sensible-future/
I still have major reservations about weight and size as well
But on the other, I see it as a lost opportunity to create an innovative system that could once again put the UK into to the armoured vehicle export business again and leap forward, rather than take a small step forward. As per this post
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/the-future-of-the-british-army-08-%E2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-03-a-not-so-sensible-future/
Good job I aren’t making the decisions!!
The notion that making something innovative will automatically allow the UK to tap export markets is just silly. Firstly the market appears to have little appetite for revolutionary platforms at the moment and pursuing such concepts entails a considerable risk of failure. Looking at where the global armoured vehicles market is ASCOD-SV, or derivatives of it, probably has as good a chance on the export market as anything else.
My defence of ASCOD-SV is the same as Phil’s it will provide an excellent (frankly world beating) vehicle with minimum risk within a sensible budget and will fulfil multiple requirements. Taking into account the MoD’s fiscal situation and the dire need for new platforms, not to mention the already made decision to destroy the indigenous armoured vehicles capability, the approach seems remarkably sensible by MoD standards.
Agree that innovation does not automatically make something exportable, but it goes a very long way.
Just thought I’d write in to say how much I am enjoying the present debate. High-class stuff! Someone, I think it might have been ArmChair Civvy, said the other day in one of the threads that he supposed discussion of the Army would have to draw to conclusion sometime (perhaps he meant way in the future). I hope that sometime is not in the near future. There are still many, many topics to be covered: Artillery, Air Defence, Engineer equipment, Logistics, Signals or Communications, REME, Medics, etc. etc. etc. If future discussions are as stimulating and thought-provoking as this current one, then any summarizing should be a long way off! Congratulations to all!
Sorry, to be joining this lively debate at a late stage (been H4H collecting)! Whow…..
I must say I to am not overly impressed by the ASCOD SV either, it certainly us NOT the best that there is, that accolade, must surely go to the Puma?
Length 7.4 m[1]
Width 3.7 m (uparmored)
Height 3.1 m
Crew 3 + 6
Armor modular AMAP[2] composite armour
Main
armament 30 mm MK30-2/ABM autocannon
400 rounds
Secondary
armament 5.56 mm HK MG4 machine gun
2,000 rounds
Spike LR anti-tank guided missile;
6-shot 76 mm grenade launcher
Engine MTU V10 892 diesel
800 kilowatts (1,100 hp) at 4,250 r/min[1]
Power/weight 25.4 kW/tonne
Suspension hydropneumatic
Operational
range 600 km
Speed 70 km/h
This is the benchmark for state of the art AFVs!
ASCOD SV is clearly not in this league Bob, sorry, yeah it’s better than Warrior, I agree Warrior was always a very poor compromise but it did ok in combat, which is why it gets much praise here, technically it was bloody awful and gas only now been made half decent!
My concern now is not which AFV we are getting, as ASCOD SV will be fine, not perfect certainly not the best but adequate, what concerns me is how many will we actually get?
I personally would like to see ASCOD SV replace Warrior, at least for the regulars, move Warrior ti the TA and update in slow time as money is available!
Phil Darley,
A huge collection of mistakes on your part. Firstly Puma is an MICV rather than a recce or specialist vehicle, different categories. Secondly, in technology terms ASCOD is most definitely in that category, its gun is arguably more modern, its transmission identical, its engine of the same generation, its armour package of the same generation, its sensors possibly better and it does not have the silly unmanned turret.
ASCOD-SV cannot replace Warrior as Warrior is an MICV and ASCOD-SV is not providing an MICV variant. No turret armed ASCOD-SV variant will be able to carry dismounts.
Bob, has the layout been finalised then, in the space where dismounts would normally be, what’s going there
I can see a lot of your points Bob but this assertion that Scout will not be an MICV puzzles me, can you expand on why and what makes it a Scout
Mike W.
WFM
Land Environment Fleets Concept (LEFC) was introduced by Maj Gen Chris Deverell, Director General of Logistics Support and Equipment in Feb 2011.
LEFC will see the UK’s inventory of vehicles divided into 5 fleets in order to concentrate efforts where they are needed. These fleets are
The basic unit fleet
Individual unit fleet
Training fleet
Reinforcement fleet
Reconstitution fleet.
Numbers
I am quite happy to be corrected on the numbers of CVRT. However, even in Bob’s scenario, 1 of the 3 sabre squadrons in a BRR will be filled by light vehicles (Jackal/Foxhound) thereby cancelling out your extra 60. As for RA vehicles, there are 59 available so I can accommodate your 40.
However, I do feel that this dissection of CVRT v WR numbers is becoming unproductive.
The claim was made that there were insufficient WR to perform the role of ASCOD-SV. I provided some numbers (no-one else had) to provide a modelling scenario to test the claim. But, for example WR and ASCOD are both larger vehicles than Spartan so why should we assume that they are going to be replaced on a 1:1 basis. Similarly, with the future structure of the BRR as yet unconfirmed it is difficult to forecast how many vehicles and of what type (Mastiff maybe?) are required for HQ and support squadrons.
To be clear my stance is that, if numbers allow, updated WR should be used to meet all the AFV requirements of an AI btn plus the AFV requirements other than CR2 in an armoured regiment. I believe this will be more cost effective than introducing ASCOD-SV.
I would replace Scimitar in the BRR and Mech Inf by Sphinx.
Effect of WFM on Numbers
With regard to the “3 battalions “ question. I made an assumption (as I said in my first post) that WFM would enable the army to operate at a ratio of 3:1 of total vehicles to vehicles required for high readiness/operations. However this is just an assumption and I am not aware of what the actual ratio will be. I note that ACC in his post which follows yours claims that WFM does not affect total numbers i.e. 5 btn’s worth of WR would be needed for the 5 AI btns. I wouldn’t like to sell that plan to the Treasury!
FRES and other AFV Numbers
The following are some quotes from JDW Jan 2011
Ambitions to develop a family of medium-weight AFVs for the British Army are effectively at an end according to senior MoD officials involved in budget discussions about future UK land warfare requirements.
The biggest hit in the economy package falls on what had been known as the FRES programme delivering medium weight armour. Already long delayed and effectively in abeyance, the programme has now seen army officers drop bids for funding to build both the medium armour and manoeuvre support FRES variants from the service’s PR11 pitch.
Although the Scout and Common Base Platform variants have survived this spending round , the numbers required have been cut with only between 70 and 100 Scout vehicles now being required.
Senior army officers are arguing hard to bring forward the in-service date of some sort of multirole armoured utility vehicle to replace thousands of FV430/Bulldog and CVR(T)s that are to be retired early as a cost saving measure.
Proposals to use UOR platforms such as Mastiff as utility vehicles …….are under consideration. The costs of renovating and converting about 200 Mastiffs to allow them to remain in long term service are put at more than £700 million, making new build vehicles competitive
TD
Nice to see you back.
I agree deployability is important , not just for armoured vehicles, but for helicopters as well.
I was the oik at the 1998 SDR who complained that the RAF Merlins were ordered unable to fold. The great & good said I was talking rubbish, but here we are, wasting more taxpayer cash, transferring RAF Merlins to the RN & trying to make them fold.
Who knows, maybe no armoured vehicle will go by air for the next 30 years. On the other hand, we may need a panic lift of armour to Afghanistan, now Karzai is not restanding in 2014.
One daydream is if a glider existed that allowed 2 dozen Honey tanks to be dropped into Arnhem in 1944, would we have lost? The Germans would have reports of allied tanks & it would have taken a while before they knew numbers or type. With a bit of luck they might have panicked & run.
2 new light tanks in Crete in 1941 made the Germans retreat in one battle. A couple of dozen might have changed the outcome.
Percontator,
One of many things Jane’s has written- ones chickens should not be counted until such a time as they have hatched.
Think Defence,
Warrior is an MICV, the idea being that it carries infantry into battle as dismounts and then supports them with its medium calibre weapon. In this role Warrior carries 7 dismounts which translates, not by coincidence, into a standard British Army infantry squad. Scimitar and the Recce variant of FRES-SV are not intended as MICV’s, they are instead intended for recce relying on their sensors and crew to perform that function, thus they do not carry dismounts. There are in the public domain quasi-cutaway CAD drawings of the Scout variant and there is no trace of space for dismounts and my understanding is that there was never any requirement for the Scout variant to do that (hence the protected mobility variant also present in recce block 1) and the July 2010 press release from the MoD announcing contract signature only mentions 3 crew. Based on that CAD drawing (and this goes to explaining where your £500 million is going) the entire vehicle internals are being rearranged and the space used for the turret, crew positions and electrical boxes etc with expanded space for all and one assumes the saved weight is used elsewhere.
Phil Darley,
I fail to see how your technical list necessarily trumps ASCOD SV. I’ll see if I can clarify with an example of top trumps:
First number will be Puma, Second will be… Warrior, circa 1991.
Length (m):__7.4___6.3
Width (m):___3.7___3.5 (estimate for up-armoured WR width)
Height (m)___3.1___2.8
Crew________3+6__3+7
Armour:__AMAP Composite___Aluminium and Applique (rumoured to be Chobham-based)
Main Armament:__30mm autocannon, 400 rounds______30mm autocannon, 225 rounds
Secondary Armament:__5.56mm MG4, 2000 rounds_____7.62mm L94, 2000 rounds
ATGW:___Spike LR (Not yet fitted)____None fitted
Grenade Launcher:__6-shot 76mm launcher_____2 4-shot 66mm launchers
Engine power:____800kW___400kW
Pwr/wt:___25.4kW/t___15.7kW/t
Suspension:___Hydropneumatic____Torsion bar
Range(km):__600___660
Speed(km/h):__70___75
So the Warrior is smaller in every dimension (smaller silhouette), carries more dismounts, has similar armour and armament (unless the observer knows the difference between the two weapons, as this list does not evidence it), except the Puma has more rounds. Perhaps that’s where the seventh seat in the back went.
The Warrior has a better secondary weapon and the same amount of the larger ammunition, but loses out on firepower because the Germans will consider mounting an ATGW on an infantry vehicle. There is nothing inherent preventing you mounting an ATGW on a Warrior though.
Smoke launchers is a bit of a tie, with 8×66 vs 6×76. Multiplying them together and accounting for area, the Warrior comes out a little ahead.
Puma has a clear lead in engine power and power-to-weight.
Suspension: It’s commonly held that hydropneumatic is better than torsion, but it is also more complex, which can impact the reliability and the repairability of the vehicle. I’ll leave this as a tie.
Lastly, the Warrior is longer-legged and faster, despite it’s apparent inferiority in terms of engine power and suspension.
So, we can conclude, from this information only, that the Puma does not offer that much over and above a 1991 vintage Warrior, except more main armament ammunition, fittings for an ATGW and more engine power. Since the British Army would never countenance an ATGW on an infantry vehicle, that reduces to more engine power and more ammo.
If one wanted to form a convincing argument about one platform over another, then the facts presented should support that conclusion.
(I can’t believe I just spent that long making that point, but what the heck?)
Puma, IMHO, would not make such a good Recce vehicle because of its unmanned turret. You cannot operate head out which, despite modern optronics, is still a really useful ability because normal human vision is better in both field of view and acuity to any video display.
Hi TD,
Which of your six links for this angle “Have you read that post in which I look at mobility by the way”?
@bob sorry but your reply is nonsense. I and everyone else on this site knows the difference between a micv and a scout vehicle. You are merely splitting hairs for what purpose I don’t know, except to make yourself appear more knowledgable?
It is obvious that warrior, Ascod and Puma are all the same type/class if vehicle. The difference us purely down to how they are to be ultimately configured.
The Puma and Ascod can both be configured to a number of roles.
The engine on the Puma may have the same origins but it’s a V10 not a V8 and produces 1100 bhp and not 805bhp! That us a he’ll if a difference. The important fact here is that the Puma can retain the same power to weight ratio as the earlier Marder I.e about 25 hp/tonne.
The other comparisons we can argue about, the CTA40 has promise, but still unproven,
As for the unmanned turret I think that is the way to go, for a scout I would argue an unmanned turret has even more promise.
Phil, how come I did not find such good words
” That vehicle will sit in amongst an organisation and how that organisation makes use of it is far more vital than some…”
Gabby, good summary, a couple of points:
” a 2-vehicles solution for under-armor Fire Support Teams, but this option is not going to be pursued. A single, updated FV514 Warrior remains the solution”
– 2010 to 2012 have been the years this requirement has been around with a full spec; if it did not get funded in these extraordinarily difficult years, I would not write it off for the future
“BAE demonstrated to the Army a Warrior bridgelayer last year, and it could well be a cheap solution for the bridgelayer section of the FRES SV Maneuver Support, with the 60 Terriers being the rest of the MS fleet.
The Bridgelayer requirement is for some 35 vehicles.”
– are there enough Titan & Trojan around to cover all other needs?
I fully agree with “, i’d cover more urgent needs, such as the creation of a Warrior mortar-carrier (ideally i’d pursue the THOR concept of the Warrior with turret-mounted breech loading mortar) for use in the Armoured Infantry, so to finally retire the FV430 Mortar carrier”
– as this is a wide requirement (as for number of units needing it), I wonder how it always gets omitted
To round it off, a question: Is this the same that was initially installed on the flatbed Stormers (now in storage)? “even a Shielder replacement, a flatbed FRES SV with a Remote-Deployed Area Denial System”
@mr.Fred the list was a lazy way to show the main attributes if the vehicle, namely a V10, hydropnuematic suspension, advanced modular armour, revolutionary turret with state of the art sensors and ATGW.
Just stating that I believe the Puma is considered by many (and it seems at least one of the US GCV contenders)to be the current state of the art for tracked AFVs
Thanks Bob, but I am more confused now. Not of course on the difference between a recce vehicle and an MICV, sorry if I was unclear about my confusion and thanks for the patient explanation :)
This is the crux of my conundrum.
We are taking the ASCOD that has a turret AND space for dismounts and changing the design but how.
The turret ring will be the same or very similar so the internal turret rotational assembly will impinge into the crew compartment roughly the same as the ASCOD, give or take a few centimtres. The driver, engine and other major assemblies will be in the same place, fuel seems to be the same from information released, there is no elevating mast behind the turret, commander and gunner will be in the same place and ammunition still stored in the turret so in short, I am puzzled what exactly we are going to be filling the dismount space with?
Looking the images and videos on the GD website the turret looks to be roughly the same size as the ASCOD, same slight offset, roughly the same sized ring etc
Went back to the SV videos and notes a couple of things
* It mentions a larger turret ring for the DF variant which would imply that the Scout turret does not use the full width of the hull
* Turret ring diemsnion is 1.7m
* The graphics clearly show a rear door
* All variants are based on a common hull and chassis
* Scout base configurtion is 34 tonnes
Finally it mentions that CIDS is a GD UK Patented system whic would raise a couple of doubts in my mind about IP
Do you have a link to those cutaways, would explain a lot
@mr.fred oh by the way if ASCOD was so good and being an American owned company wouldn’t it have been selected as a basis for a GCV design??
Enough said…..
Even though this one is outside the CVRT/ FRES SV angle, it keeps popping up, so:
“Equally however it [Terrier]was a troubled programme, costs rose dramatically” – yes
” (fortunately BAE was contractually obliged to absorb them)”
– they only paid the liquidated damages after litigation, and as far as I remember the client also absorbed a share => BAE started from scratch, under a new contract and it tends to be this number, divided by 60, that is quoted as the unit cost (paints far too rosy a picture of short production runs, so while the case in not so important, the principle and lessons learnt are)
” and its service entry was delayed by over three years” – yes
Phil,
Wow you are ill-informed. Puma and ASCOD-SV are intended to do very different things, quite clearly you do not understand the difference or you would not make such a silly statement. As for GCV, seriously? You think that? Do you know anything? GCV will be a clean sheet design for an MICV with a weight approaching MBT standards, the analysis of alternatives undertaken by the DoD made it clear that no existing design meets its requirements to the extent that even your beloved Puma was rejected. Puma and FRES-SV are different classes of vehicle intended to do different things, consequently whilst Puma is larger and heavier (with more power) it is still roughly of the same technological level as ASCOD-SV. And remote turrets are not the way to go unless you are trying to lower the centre of gravity, the ability to have a commander in the turret is a much cherished one if you ever care to talk to scout vehicle personnel.
ArmChairCivvy,
Sorry I did not fully understand your comment, are you saying that more than £300 million was spent on Terrier in total?
“bob sorry but your reply is nonsense.”
Why is it nonsense? TD asked why SCOUT was not an MICV and Bob simply stated that MICVs carry dismounts and SCOUT is not planned to have any dismounts. I got it. Perhaps it was based on a misunderstanding of what TD asked but it certainly was not nonsense. My girlfriend could read the response and now understand the difference between an MICV and SCOUT.
“It is obvious that warrior, Ascod and Puma are all the same type/class if vehicle. The difference us purely down to how they are to be ultimately configured.”
So what is your beef with FRES-SV?
Hi TD,
On this one I have to disagree “Phil, if we are supporting UK defence industries then at a national industrial strategy level, there has to be a return”
– I support Astute, T45,Typhoon,F35 a- a t a stretch even the to-some-degree domestic helo models
– the case for FRES (SV, as the other vapourised)is in the “pending” basket as I agree that it adds very little to the technology base (unlike the others mentioned)
– return is something that needs to be traded off against security offered well into the future by having a sector that can be ramped up. Compare with food production self-sufficiency: market prices might tell you that 2% is the right level for domestic production. You might still opt for 25-35, for exactly the same kind of reasons
— in both examples, the subsidy element has to be transparent, and for defence industry only for the R&D phase. And what have we done? Of course we dismantled anything that looked like the DARPA set up in the USA
To follow up with a small detail; does the following not put Bob’s revised WR upgrading figure of £1.5m per unit in a good light?
“The last published contract price for CV9035 was about £3.5million all in so 500 buys what, roughly 140”
Phil Darley,
My response was a pedantic way of pointing out that your list didn’t show how superior the Puma is. It only shows the absolute power and power-to-weight ratio advantage, which somehow fails to translate into a speed advantage and succeeds in translating into a rangedisadvantage.
The list fails to mention turret design, which is an evolution of previous designs, not revolutionary, or sensors, which are quite clever* and comprehensive, including a independent commander’s sight and a stabilised gunner’s sight, both with thermal channels.
It makes passing mention of the main armament, which is dual feed, automatic to 200rounds per minute and equipped with a muzzle-mounted fuse setter to give very accurate position of burst for time-fused shells. Being 30x173mm it has access to both shrapnel and bursting types of time-fused shells readily available on the open market.
ATGW isn’t particularly innovative for an IFV – The BMP1 has one. The British Army, on the other hand, seems to have some institutional bias against arming their infantry vehicles or scout vehicles to be tank-killers, preferring instead slightly larger cannon so they can have small scale light-tank on light-tank gun battles.
Modular armour is not a new concept either. It may be neatly done on Puma, but most other vehicles mount modular upgrades to their survivability.
By all means make the case, but do actually make the case.
Incidentally, Puma is out of the GCV competition, barring an appeal by Boeing and SAIC. BAEsystems and GD are the competitors out there at the moment.
*putting a direct-view optic out of a fully rotating turret to the hull is pretty smart and a very good way of avoiding loss of detail that a video feed gives
Think Defence,
Unfortunately I do not have a link to the cutaways, I would however make a few points. Historically the UK has never had a dismount requirement for its recce vehicles- note Scimitar and Fox as well as TRACER. Just because a vehicle has a door in the rear it does not make it an MICV- take Merkava as a case in point and Bradley M3 (Crew of 5 at most). The common hull and chassis is the entire point of the FRES-SV programme and one that so many here have not only missed but continue to miss. In the case of FRES-SV ammunition is actually not being stored in the turret but under armour, the stated aim of this being to free up space in the turret something also provided by the large turret ring. Space and ergonomics are something that GDUK is making a considerable amount of noise about. There is actually quite allot that can be done internally even without changing the basic layout (turret and engine), for a start one assumes suspended mine protected seats will be provided for all which require more space, Bowman, P-BISA, power distribution, displays etc all need to find a home and be located appropriately etc.
Hi Mike W,
A good list “Artillery, Air Defence, Engineer equipment, Logistics, Signals or Communications, REME, Medics, etc. etc. etc.”
– Add: intervention & Special Forces, what is required of that capability (should conclude something about the sizing) and what are the main gaps in the current kit
Phil Darley,
Regarding the choice of GCV base vehicles, there may be a number of reasons why ASCOD might not have been chosen. I’ll see if I can think up a few:
1) ASCOD could be stretched to be a scout, but it is getting too close to the limits of the chassis to be a better protected IFV that also carries two more dismounts
2) The requirement was for something more advanced and they are being paid £270m to conduct a technology development phase – i.e. the bit that GDUK and BAESystems did mostly on their own money for FRES SV.
3) The political dimension means that GD believed that foreign IP would not be acceptable.
4) GD had a large workforce available from the failed EFV project and would like to fully utilise them working on their platform rather than they go out and take their hard-won experience to other, competing, companies.
5) Working with the European arm of GD causes too much problems with ITAR and it is easier to develop new.
There may be more, but I’m about done for now.
TD,
Conceivably you can have a turret ring the width of the hull top, but you would run out of space to put the basket inside the vehicle between the tracks. Half-metre track-space on a 3m vehicle would give you a 2m turret ring.
On a scout vehicle, I would think that these days the space in the back would be used as a base for a scout team or a UAV controller (and a UAV). It would also be a good route out of the turret to avoid sky-lining yourself as you climb out of the turret.
MrFred,
Allow me to just add, DoD is planning to spend $7.6 billion just on R&D for GCV through to 2017, compare to $814 million (at current exchange rates) for FRES-SV.
Thanks Bob, I understand the issue of dismounts and recce vehicles. Its a wider point but I can actually see the advantage but that as they say is another argument.
The issue I am trying to explore is regardless of the designation or how it is employed what are the phyical differences between any old MICV (or more specifically ASCOD) and FRES SV Scout
Thanks for the correction on the ammo storage, must have been thinking of an old reference or something. I understand that having a rear door does not an MICV make but the point here is about modification to an existing design and given that the rear door seems to be retained one might make the assumption that the rear compartment is also retained. As the turret is more or less the same size as Pizarro then I am puzzled what the void will be filled with. This is especially intrigueing because it appears that the sensor fit, electronics etc (CIDS is supposed to reduce volume) is nothing much beyond what might be expected of any vehicle of this type. Displays and so will of course be in the crew spaces and the P-BISA processors from DRS are pretty compact
Hence, I am still confused what will be in the back
“Hence, I am still confused what will be in the back”
Porn, iPods and cached slabs of beer.
Maybe I have rose-tinted spectacles, but to me this sentence says exactly what I have been speculating
“has now seen army officers drop bids for funding to build both the medium armour and manoeuvre support FRES variants ”
– operative words both-and
– the opposite is either-or
– in the current round/ first batch SV order manoeuvre support will be delayed
– I have been speculating about the numbers for the remaining versions (in that first order) but I have also clearly stated it is my private opinion
Mastiff’s (and same chassis supply vehicles):
– indirectly the JDW article seems to confirm that the oldest batch (100) will be written off
– leaves another 200 ( plus 100 resupply); using them in the rear echelons of a BG/ any formation is a good idea, even though I have been promoting two MI Bn’s (not saying regular/ TA)equipped with them. However, the reporter seems to be picking figures from the thin air (or a wrong context) as 700m for 200 is about three times (?) what they cost to begin with
Phil, which kind of makes my point about it being a MICV :)
Think Defence,
With the engine at the front the entire aft-portion of the vehicle is the “rear compartment” including the area with the turret and driver- the rear is simply the most logical pace to have a door in that scenario. In essence what placing the engine and transmission at the front does is give you a large space at the rear which you can chop and change at will. If you watch the GD video they actually do cutaways and you can see that the turret dominates the whole rear area of the vehicle, don’t let the stowage boxes at the rear confuse you, there is not much space left behind it. CIDS is intended to reduce volume where other systems would otherwise be performing the role- it can not do that where it is introducing a new capability. ASCOD’s and Ulan’s are relatively austerely equipped and somewhat cramped in the back, ASCOD-SV scout will not be austerely equipped and is intended to keep its crew under armour (CBRN lockdown) for 72 hours which is going to require considerable amenities (food, water, toilet etc: losing further space) and Bowman is notoriously fat. Without seats in the back to carry an infantry squad it is not an MICV- period. And roof mounted blast attenuating seats take a lot of space.
I also want to point out the growth potential the vehicle brings with it, in addition to having a transmission and running gear rated for 42 tonnes, a turret ring expandable to 2.1m, an engine that can be uprated by 25% (to 1000hp) it also has the potential to generate unto 1000 amps with the addition of an integrator starter generator. No Warrior is going to give you that growth potential.
A couple of things that have caught my eye;
— The air mobility thing is not so important. It’s a handy trick to be able to rapidly redeploy armour, but I’m not sure if we should be constraining FRES around the ability to be carried in a C-130 for example, or fully loaded in an A400m.
— The bridges thing I don’t get. Presumably the Scout is scouting for someone? Like an armoured coloumn? Thus the weight of the vehicles behind the scout dictate which routes it can use. No good selecting a bridge with a 20 ton capacity if you’re path finding for Challengers.
— However, to quote Bob, “… it (ASCOD) will provide an excellent (frankly world beating) vehicle..”
I look at ASCOD and I see a CAD drawing. So I believe this should be rephrased as “might provide” or “we hope will provide” a world beating vehicle.
Personally I don’t see that the half billion pounds of development work will produce anything that is leaps and bounds ahead of CV90, which for a half billion development phase is what I expect. ASCOD might end up being a little better, but not half a billion quids worth.
I think we should just remove the risk and go CV90.
Hi TD & Bob,
I have had this same question in my mind for a long time “We are taking the ASCOD that has a turret AND space for dismounts and changing the design but how.”
– if I think about the main functionalities (and assuming zero dismounts and the door TD mentions is for access to deal with things that are not accessible from within the crew compartment)… the only thing that has not been mentioned so far is integration with external sensors (UAVs, other recce teams. downloads of live video from manned helos/ tactical strike aircraft)
The US started with integrated battle field a long time ago (4th D/ Bde? was already a fully kitted out experimental unit when it was sent to Iraq). USMC is well advanced with this kind of integration (incl. Zulu and all its own strike aircraft)
— it must be in the design (even if not implemented)???
Chris,
All this has been covered, £500 million is really not that much for a programme of this scale and you would be very misguided to think it would buy you a revolution- I point you to the $7.6 billion planned for R&D for GCV. £500 million will however buy you evolution and put you at the top of that curve. Do you mean CV90-recce or CV90 Mk III? And for what roles? CV90 does not exist in all the variants the UK wants. Frankly ASCOD-SV is already a relatively low risk programme.
Hi Bob,
I’ve posted the links to relevant (different years) NAO MoD Major Projects reports earlier re:
“ArmChairCivvy,
Sorry I did not fully understand your comment, are you saying that more than £300 million was spent on Terrier in total?”
– right now I can’t remember which thread that was
ArmChairCivvy,
Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be making the same mistake that Think Defence made which is believing that their are multiple compartments, there are not- there is only one and that is the area behind the engine and transmission bay- the rear exit makes an entirely logical entry and exit point being as it is unencumbered by an engine and direct to the ground- thus not involving clambering out of roof hatches (and taking on board things other than crew). ASCOD-SV recce rooms is something I have seen nothing on for far, UAV control I find unlikely, more probable is data links to Apache (there is an Apache-Bowman link) and Watchkeeper for overwatch and CAS.
Bob, you are an arrogant prick!
Of course I know the difference between a micv and a scout. They in terms of the vehicles we are discussing are simply different versions or additions of a common design!
As I stated before you are splitting hairs. The basic designs are the same. The point I was making which others on this site gave also stated, is that ASCOD SV is only moderately better than what we currently have and you seem to be over stating it’s capabilities.
I do not believe the GDUK bullshit that surrounds this vehicle. I think we are being stung, the enhancements do not warrant the £500 million costs!
With regard to GCV I am aware that the US want a new design abd seem to be going for a behemoth!!! The clumsy point I was making was that SAIC were impressed enough with Puma to build it’s GCV on this vehicle. Which seems to have backfired as they were not awarded a technology development contract, Shame as I think it would have led to a cheaper and probably much more usable vehicle than the other two contenders.
Bob, have had a look at some interior pictures of a Pizarro 2 and agree it is snug but it still manages to fit 7 seats in. Now assuming the enlarged turret ring strips out the left had seat next to the turret even though the video seems to show the same offset design that still leaves space for half a dozen seats. Most roof suspended blast attenuating seat designs I have seen are predicated on no personnel reductions because there is a big market for retrofitting older designs but I can see where you are coming from regards the other stuff.
Just to clear up any confusion, I wanslt thinking there are multiple compartments behind the engine, I understand it is one space into which you put stuff
The point I am making is that whilst we chose not to use it as such because we want other things, like extra rations or porn, the simple fact remains, it is one.
A extra road wheel and hey presto, Warrior replacement!!!
The protected mobility variant offers a greater dismount capacity and that might be the way to go for personnel, I am not a big fan of the MICV concept in general, but as per the previous post, thats another argument
Just to ask again everyone, can we keep things friendly
Hi Mr. fred
I agree with the institutional bias in this -and find it amazing
” The British Army, on the other hand, seems to have some institutional bias against arming their infantry vehicles or scout vehicles to be tank-killers, preferring instead slightly larger cannon so they can have small scale light-tank on light-tank gun battles.”
– the overwatch concept was great when Swinfire was leading the field (not only warhead and range, but of special importance for recce formations, could be fired from a concealed position)
– it would be time to move “with the times” as Puma’s Spike -ER reach out to 8 km and and BMP-2M’s four out to 5.5 km, so both of them can slug it out with tanks (except that the tank gun rounds fly faster and first-kill probabilities are v high)
“Bob, you are an arrogant prick!”
Why is he an arrogant prick? It’s a debate on the internet. Not between mates down the pub. It’s perfectly acceptable to take a more academic tone.
Hi Chris B,
“The bridges thing I don’t get. Presumably the Scout is scouting for someone? Like an armoured coloumn? Thus the weight of the vehicles behind the scout dictate which routes it can use. No good selecting a bridge with a 20 ton capacity if you’re path finding for Challengers.”
– I would take it as a given that the recce formation will have (must have!) to be more mobile/ all-terrain than the main formation (which has the capacity to force its way through)?
Bob, you mentioned that CV90 doesnt have the variants we want for SV, do you have a list of what we want
Hi Bob,
“Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be making the same mistake that Think Defence made which is believing that their are multiple compartments, there are not”
– I did not mean to make that mistake, I was thinking of access to electronics that the crew does not need but the specialists (for maintenance etc) do
[ As an aside, Merkava had the engine put in the front, to improve survivability after a frontal hit. Resupply was always in doubt… if you need to dash across the whole of Sinai. The rear compartment, cleared of extra rounds, holds four dismounts. Of late, these have been found more valuable than the ammo reloads… when the distances now do not involve those long dashes, without guaranteed resupply]
But back to “business”
-“ASCOD-SV recce rooms is something I have seen nothing on for far”, me neither
– “UAV control I find unlikely”, me too, I would think the protected mobility version would be used for this (control of bigger, launched from further back, or operating a small one by a dismounted team while sensor input collected is fed to a team member inside the vehicle, and further back to the integarted picture fusion at the next “node” sort of thing)
Buy all “the stuff” from the US and it will take you onto a one-way road, with no turning at the end of it
“SAIC were impressed enough with Puma to build it’s GCV on this vehicle. Which seems to have backfired as they were not awarded a technology development contract, Shame as I think it would have led to a cheaper and probably much more usable vehicle than the other two contenders.”
– this quote is in no way intended as a specific reference to ASCOD2 which has a lot of European content & co-operation
– but first you merge facilities under a US company umbrella; guess where will the closures be after the first contract is lost? (BAE is playing the same game with other “host” gvmnts in the tenders they are participating in)
– against this background UK insistence on design authority & IP is well placed (whether what is under those terms is well understood in negotiations is still unclear to me)
Phil said “Why is he an arrogant prick? It’s a debate on the internet. Not between mates down the pub. It’s perfectly acceptable to take a more academic tone.”
It is more acceptable to be pleasant. You and Bob are quite the pair. Basically you are saying your view of how things should be done here trumps everybody else’s.
No I’m saying have a thicker skin. Calling someone a prick and then expecting them to be civil back is a stretch. Bob is not rude. He is simply to the point. And when he spends time writing a reasoned post which gets countered with “prick” and “bullshit” I wonder why he bothers at all.
eh
eh
Phil Darley,
On the basis that you are a nasty piece of work I am not going to bother engaging you anymore, suffice to say everything you have typed in this thread has been ill-informed arm chair rubbish of the worst sort.
Think Defence,
Remember that a wider turret would also push backwards so it would soon end up eliminating the first pair of seats taking you down to 4- a fairly small space that could soon be absorbed by stores, systems and other equipment. It is not an MICV, it would be if it could carry an infantry squad- which it can not, that is what Warrior is for.
The precise variant composition has varied over time, apparently there are/were 20 identified potential variants though 14 seems to be the current number, these are what I have teased out:
Recce Block 1 (500+)
1) Scout (Scimitar)
2) Protected Mobility (Spartan)
3) Repair (FV434)
4) Recovery (Samson)
Recce Block 2 (140)
5) Joint Fire Control
6) Engineer recce
7) Command and Control (C2)
Recce Block 3 (?)
8) Area Denial (Stormer)
9) Overwatch (Striker)
10) Ground based surveillance
11) Command (Sultan)
12) Medical Post
13) Ambulance (Samaritan)
Medium Armour (200)
11) Direct fire (the mythical 120mm armed version)
12) Repair again
13) Recovery again
Manoeuvre Support (?)
14) AVRE
15) AET
16) AVLB
I got tired of assigning older vehicles. Clearly there is considerable room for chopping and merging but the plan appears to be to replace the entirety of the remaining CVRT and non Bulldog FV430 vehicles almost role for role.
@ Bob,
As far as I’m aware, everything in that list is covered by CV90. And I believe we could bring CV90 up to standard (Bowman etc) for less than £500 million.
Also, you said “£500 million is really not that much for a programme of this scale and you would be very misguided to think it would buy you a revolution-“. Forgive me, but according to your sales patter that’s what we’re buying.
I don’t know if you are working for General Dynamics or the MoD or whoever, but you do seem a) rather knowledgable of the details of this specific vehicle program and b) very, very fond of it. To the point of quoting the sales pitch.
It just strikes me that, based on a calculated guess, you’re very much tied to the project and its success.
I think also some people are getting frustrated because you keep telling us that ASCOD is a world beater etc, without explaining how. Just saying it’ll have a slightly more powerful engine is not sufficient I feel. Saying the word “optics” or “sensors” doesn’t really cut it either.
I just see another £500 million being shelled out on something that really is probably going to end up only on a par with CV90, providing all the development work goes smoothly (stop laughing at the back).
I’m afraid many of us round these parts have become intensely cynical about military projects. We’re heard about “step changes in capability” “revolutions in military affairs” “cutting edge systems” etc one too many times. And It’s almost become guaranteed that any project the MoD says will cost £500 million will invariably double in price in the next two years.
Which brings us perhaps to the crux of the matter. If indeed you do posess inside info, what exactly is the half billion pound investment buying? Seven vehicles yes. But what are these? New builds? Reconditioned units? What research is caught in the scope of that half billion?
Perhaps if I put it another way; My thinking right now is that we could put Bowman on the CV90 and make an Ambulance out of the Command version, for considerably less than £500 million.
Why should I support ASCOD then? What will the £500 million buy me that I dont have already in my version?
Cheers,
@ ACC
I was referring exclusively to the argument about bridges. People were complaining that a 30-ton scout would be limited to the type of bridges it could cross. My argument would be that it need not cross any bridge that it’s following units could not.
Thanks Bob, will worl through that list, no air defence variant?
Seems like CAMM on the back of a 6 tonner seems to be the direction of travel
Just a few quick comments, am puzzled by the military engineering vehicles given that AVRE is covered by Trojan and Terrier, not sure what a FRES AVRE would offer apart from duplication and extra cost. AET is I assume Engineering Tractor as per the old Combat Engineer Tractor, this being replaced with Terrier. The bridging requirement is also interesting because although Warrior seems to have been trialled with bridging equipment the rer engine Terrier would be much better suited given its weight at the back design when lanching assault bridges.
Am also puzzled by 12 and 13, given the whole point is it is a family of vehicles why would we need 2 types of repair and recovery vehicles.
Apart from the combat engineering vehicles aren’t seeing much that isnt already available in CV90 though if we are so keen on a low risk solution. Having said that, most of them are already available in ASCOD as well
‘Phil Darley,
On the basis that you are a nasty piece of work I am not going to bother engaging you anymore, suffice to say everything you have typed in this thread has been ill-informed arm chair rubbish of the worst sort’
That you seen off Phil, along with Tony williams, and the rest of us thicko’s.
You know the ones who reckognise that FRES SV is and upgraded Ascod. And thats all it is. And wonder why as everyone who uses it, uses it as an MICV why it isn’t just and MICV with lots of electrics crammed in it, and that if you took them out it reverts to an MICV.
Nothing at all revolutionary or even a bit special about 14 different roles. AVRE bridging varients,etc etc, just all the usuall ones, all the other Armies use for armoured vehicles. Many of them will indeed be the same vehicle with the recon stuff taken out and other stuff slotted in.
So don’t take it to heart Phil
Hi Chris,
Yes “My argument would be that it need not cross any bridge that it’s following units could not.”
– agreed
But: I was saying, additionally, that it would not be typical of the recce formation to go over the bridge as OpFor are not stupid and will monitor, mine, defend the natural choke points.Water obstacles are just part of difficult terrain more generally, but the physical limit (in meters) is easily reached and then insurmountable (no amphibiousity at all)
Therefore we are to mobility enhancers, and my bet that they will not be part of the early package. The Terrier part is there (same weight as the Scout) and then we get another vehicle -cheaper, but on different mechanics – the WR bridge layer.
– now, we have a small formation, about as far away from depot as they go, on 3 different mechanics
– and on the other hand, without all those types “in tow” (joke joke, the other two go first,I guess)the formation is not up to the job it has been created for!
I hope you see where I am coming from, and it is not a point at you but more general about setting requirements to do the task, and then ending up one-size-fits-all, when it doesn’t
I think what you’re saying is that you want a bridgelaying vehicle incorporated into the program from day one?
Hi TD,
RE “CV family versions”
In the CV90 Armadillo family both combat engineer and bridge layer versions are now covered
( http://www.deagel.com/Tracked-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles/CV90-Armadillo_a000589014.aspx)
IOC: 2010
Origin
Sweden
Contractor/s
BAE Systems Hagglunds AB
Family Members
CV90 AMOS
CV90 ARV
CV90 FCV
CV90 FOV
CV90105
CV90120
CV9030
CV9030 COM
CV9030 MkII
CV9035 MkIII
CV9040
CV9040 AAV
CV9040C
Additionally active Protection Systems (expensive though):
LEDS-150
RE “back of the 6 tonner” direction of travel in AA
– why not the new Thales combo of 6 * Starstreak PLUS the 40 mm CTA (even though the latter is not ideal in AA because of slow rate fire, at least it has commonality within the brigade)… why not even retrofit it onto Stormers (radar and all those expensive bits on top of optics; detect is one thing, guide another… especially without interference)
Hi Chris,
It has to be part of the formation, but I would put up with the diversity in the early days and get the Scout and (supporting)Protected Mobility versions on the way ASAP
… many parts of the world are not full of criss-crossing rivers (like e.g. Europe, so factoring in
probabilities should guide the immediate priorities as well)
PS I forgot to credit TD for a good design point (as Terrier will be “there” in any case):
” Terrier, not sure what a FRES AVRE would offer apart from duplication and extra cost. AET is I assume Engineering Tractor as per the old Combat Engineer Tractor, this being replaced with Terrier. The bridging requirement is also interesting because although Warrior seems to have been trialled with bridging equipment the re[a]r engine Terrier would be much better suited given its weight at the back design when la[u]nching assault bridges.”
Right I’m with you now! For me personally bridge laying is at the bottom of the list due to this capability being partially covered elsewhere. But eventually yeah, a bridge layer would be nice.
The bridgelayer requirement within FRES is for some 35 vehicles, and last year BAE demonstrated the Warrior bridgelayer conversion to the Army: it will be undoubtedly cheaper to go down this route than buying whole new and expensive vehicles. A good few millions should be saved.
IXION, thanks for your support, you summed it up my more elequantly than I did.
Can I start by apologising for resorting to personal insults ( the type you find on other blogs). I just lost it with the constant rudeness and hair splitting to reinforce his view.
I will just say again ASCOD us just another AFV, in essense no different to Puma, Bradley, Warrior etc. It’s what it’s finally being configured for that turns it in to a Scout. It us a family of vehicles that I suspect will eventually include micv/warrior replacement. It was the general design and engineering aspects that I was referring to and maintain that on balance a development of the Puma or CV90 would be better. The engine and suspension of the puma is better than ASCOD.
The end from me. Again sorry for the arrogant prick comment, but you started it ;-))
IXION,
I am still waiting for you to justify with evidence any of your claims in this thread- so far you have not.
Re Armadillo, most of those concepts are at the same stage as the ASCOD-SV ones, that is as CGI’s. CV90 at this stage does not offer all all those roles (also the list I provided is far from complete), neither does it offer the growth and payload potential of ASCOD-SV, something which people tend to forget. Modifying Warriors is just kicking the can down the road (Warrior OSD 2035 compared to 2047 for FRES-SV [based on IOC of 2017 and quoted lifespan- I dont know what FOC date is] with the available growth potential allowing that to be pushed back).
Re internal volume: See the most recent Jane’s IDR, contains an array of new images, both CAD and photo that demonstrate how little space will be left in ASCOD-SV after the turret has been installed and other major sub-assemblies. The article also goes into some detail about the changes being made, I note for instance the installation of an APU and auxiliary fuel tank for the Scout variant.
Re Starstreak, it does not seem to have made an appearance in the FRES-SV programme (at least to my knowledge) but then it was always something of an orphan having been installed on Stormer as it came outside the “normal” vehicle procurement cycle (one assumes it did not go on a Warrior chassis due to cost concerns), I suspect it will slowly exit out of the back door with little fanfare and be replaced by CAMM.
Thought I would have a stab at a role matrix for ASCOD and CV90
Think Defence,
I understand neither CV90 Direct Fire (CV90-120) or the AMOS Mortar variant are in service but exist only as prototypes. Apologies if you are referencing different vehicles. I am also not aware of a dedicated ATGM version, do you have a link?
I thought the 105mm variant was in service with Switzerland but was wrong, will amend the diagram
AMOS comes into limited service with Sweden this year I think and Finland will bring in into service in 2013 so perhaps I was being a bit hasty on that one as well
Don’t get your hopes up on ATGW variant, it has a pair of BILL launchers on the turret side and a hatch on teh rear deck for manual reloading, its called the CV9056
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJiwtUKypI
The CV90 and ASCOD recovery variants also carry out some repair and maintenance tasks but have left that role as a blank
“Re Starstreak, it does not seem to have made an appearance in the FRES-SV programme (at least to my knowledge) but then it was always something of an orphan having been installed on Stormer as it came outside the “normal” vehicle procurement cycle (one assumes it did not go on a Warrior chassis due to cost concerns), I suspect it will slowly exit out of the back door with little fanfare and be replaced by CAMM.”
Starstreak has a nominal OSD of 2020, and its future/replacement depends on NEADS, a programme of the Royal Artillery on Air Defence sensors, networks, and “effectors”, aka the weapons.
NEADS includes LEAPP, CAMM, and other things. So far, a precise strategy for replacing Starstreak is just not there, though.
I doubt it can be replaced by CAMM.
Or better, it CAN due to budget issues ruling out a proper replacement, but technically it cannot as CAMM is simply not a shorad weapon, is not as suited to follow armoured formations on the move to protect them from pop-up helos and drones, and as of now there is not a CAMM version suitable for use by light formations, while Starstreak has the LML man-portable triple firing post that can even be parachuted and easily deployed everywhere, in any kind of method.
The Stormer Starstreak has just been upgraded, and two self propelled batteries remain, plus at least one LML battery and the RM Air Defence Troop, and it can now fire LMM as well.
I think it could just be life-extended further past 2020, and indeed i believe it is an option. And the launcher could of course in time migrate onto another vehicle, even if now it is not planned.
I’ve covered things in detail in a post on my blog, so allow me to post the link: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/future-force-2020-royal-artillery.html
Think Defence,
AMOS in Finish service is mounted on the Patria AMV not the CV90, I understand that Sweden has cancelled its AMOS order leaving the 40 converted chassis (without their AMOS turrets) in storage? I am sure you will appreciate my unwillingness to describe CV90-Bill as an ATGM/Overwatch vehicle, that must be one of the most “unclean” ATGM installations I have seen!
Gabriele,
I wondered if that was your blog, can I just say that it is an outstanding blog and shows a level of knowledge and understanding rarely seen in UK defence commentary. You have produced a truly excellent source of information and analysis- I applaud you.
The ASCOD2/FRES (SV) is, as has been repeatedly pointed out a pimped up ASCOD MICV, adapted for another role. A good Comparison would be the US Army adapting its M2 Bradley MICV into the M3 Bradley CFV.
GD is not reducing its size in fact it is getting a bit bigger so what use is going to be made of the area occupied by the dismounts in the MICV platform? That question has not been answered yet. In the M3 it was additional TOW reloads.
I strongly agree with TD that £500M for a developement contract and a few prototypes when the programme is based on an existing one seems expensive. Yes we will be getting a new platform that will hopefully be developed into a family of vehicles to replace a large number of existing ones, but no additional funding is secure and there is going to be one hell of a bun fight at the MoD post 2015 if the aspirational budget increase does not materialise. Having let a developemental contract does NOT mean the programme is safe beyond that.
£500 million is not expensive when it is compared with other armoured vehicles programmes, just because it seems like a large sum of money it does not mean that it is. I suggest you take a look at the latest Jane’s IDR to get an understanding of what is actually happening to ASCOD-SV Scout. A “pimped” ASCOD it certainly is not, a highly evolved one it is.
Just on the subject of Warrior bridge layers, what a complete abortion that would be and would not save any money whatsoever because it would complicate the support and logistics structure inside armoured engineer squadrons. Saving a few quid by using surplus Warrior as a base vehicle will pale into insignificance when measured against the need for a LAD to support yet another vehicle. Much better, if we actually need a medium weight assault bridge, which of course by going from 10 to 30 tonnes for our recce component we do (another hidden cost) then attaching one to a Terrier is a more sensible operational and financial road to travel.
@ ChrisB – “The air mobility thing is not so important. It’s a handy trick to be able to rapidly redeploy armour, but I’m not sure if we should be constraining FRES around the ability to be carried in a C-130 for example, or fully loaded in an A400m.”
the desire for a smaller vehicle doesn’t simply stem from air portability, but that portability brings with it a raft of other benefits from reduced logistic support to more capable terrain handling.
to regurgitate a comment i made in response to the “need to rethink fres sv” thread:
—————————
I am very sympathetic to a CVRT replacement, particularly given the importance that rapid intervention forces will have to future british expeditionary adventures.
But.
If we are to create such a vehicle it can only be justified if it has capabilities completely unavailable to both the heavy alternative (warrior/ascod), and the light alternative (fennec/warthog).
It needs to decisively more mobile/transportable than warrior/ascod:
Width = less than 2.3m (admin is right)
Weight = less than 16 tonnes (2x in an A400m)
Pressure = low enough to go across boggy ground
It needs to be decisively more capable than fennec/warthog:
Type = single-hull tracked
Armament = 40mm CTA
Protection = ??? (what is more than Warthog provides?)
If you can make a vehicle that meets this spec then it serves a purpose, and we should create a true CVRT replacement.
Questions:
1. At 16 tonnes loaded up it won’t be transportable in-theatre by Chinook, is this a killer?
2. At 16 tonnes loaded up, can we provide a level of protection significantly greater than warthog?
3. At 16 tonnes loaded up, will it provide a significantly reduced fuel requirement over ascod?
4. At 16 tonnes loaded up, can it be compact enough to fit in a ISO, drive through rubber plantations?
5. At 16 tonnes loaded up, will it have a ground pressure that will enable it to do boggy ground that ascod can’t?
6. At 16 tonnes loaded up, can we fit a 40mm CTA for both lethality and commonality?
7. At 16 tonnes loaded up, will we be able to achieve real surprise by having it turn up in unexpected places?
It doesn’t just need good enough mobility, it needs utterly terrific mobility in order for it to act as a real game-changer as was the case with the conflict that must not be named.
In short; is 16 tonnes an effective compromise?
—————————–
I still believe that such a vehicle is useful provided those questions above can be answered, but quite where along the weight/size scale that compromise might lie is not something i have an answer for.
regards
JBT
Just to recap from before
I looked at the changing nature of recce, fighting for information or sneaking around, secondary roles and other trends here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/the-future-of-the-british-army-06-%E2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-01/
Then a couple of posts on possible alternatives
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/the-future-of-the-british-army-06-%E2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-02-a-sensible-future/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/the-future-of-the-british-army-08-%E2%80%93-istar-and-formation-reconnaissance-03-a-not-so-sensible-future/
This last one had some detail about the impact of weight and size on tactical and strategic mobility
As I have said before, I can understand the drivers for going heavier for recce but it is not a consequence free decision
BOB
You mean facts like:-
1)Other than it is an MICV in service with Other countries as an MICV. Would you like list?
2)That many medium armoured vehicles back to the French AMX and even the sherman have been produced in mulitple varients like bridging etc, this is not engineering rocket science. If you like I can start posting links to a couple of sites that can show you pictures of them?
3) Widening a turret ring is not rocket science etither it’s bread and butter engineering.
4) In short it is an unremarkable programme. That will produce agood series of vehicles like lots of other armies have or a planning.
You could start answering some of the questions I and other have posed.
Like what does the extra weight or armour really bring to the party in terms of real world protection?
On an unrelated matter to the technical points I am with others assuming it is finacially doomed.
TD’s Point that suddenly we are talking about support and bridging versions and other vehicles for when the going gets sticky (which CVRT did not need).
OH and please stop referrencing US procurement, ton show how cheap Fres is. If you like I could list the 4 or 5 very expensive attempts to produce a new series of vehicles since ww2 that challange the laws of Physics. So far its laws of Physics one hugely expensive US medium armoured vehicle nill. (And US taxpayer not even out of the dressing room).
Even Bradley etc have never been seen as that good.
Oh IXION, more silliness,
If ASCOD-SV was built in an MICV variant then that variant would be an MICV, but as it is not being built as such there is not an MICV variant of ASCOD-SV, it matters not what other variants of the basic chassis and power train are being used in other countries. Unless you are also saying that Titan and Trojan are actually Main Battle Tanks?
Why so upset about widening the turret ring? It is only one of many changes being made to evolve the vehicle platform.
Your “questions” (more rambling ill-informed sweeping assertions) have been answered many times over, and with supporting evidence. You know full well that the exact protection levels, not just of FRES-SV but of most current british Army vehicles are classified, however one can use ones intelligence and the limited information available to deduce that it will be a considerable improvement over current vehicles.
You only want me to stop referencing the US (I have also referenced other European and UK programmes) because it proves your ranting about cost to be nonsense. ASCOD-SV is ver sensible evolution of an existing design that will produce a market leading vehicle in multiple variants and for a rational amount of money. I will not stop providing evidence and context just because you do not like being wrong. Let me remind you though, current FRES-SV development cost at todays exchange rate is $813.2 million, US DoD expects to spend $7.6 billion on GCV R&D through to 2017.
I think we may be in danger of arguing over tomatoes and potatoes
Pimped or highly evolved, its the same thing really, isn’t it
The simple fact is SV Scout will look like an MICV, have the same general layout as an MICV, have most of the components of in service MICV’s and is derived from an MICV, but I think we can take Bob’s view that internally, the space that would usually be given to dismounts is taken up with other stuff, thus, turning it from an MICV into a Scout.
I think we could argue the semantics of this one forever.
Could the Scout be turned into an MICV/Warrior replacement, if the tooth fairy turned up with a pot of cash?
Yes, perhaps, depending on what this extra scout stuff in the dismount area actually is or perhaps with an extra road wheel or hull extension of some kind.
I think even Bob would find it difficult to argue with that one
So lets agree, Scout and an MICV are very closely related and could be interchangeable with not a lot of effort.
This then suggests a discussion of the relative values of an MICV and APC, do we necessarily have to have vehicles with full sections, could the APC variant approach the protection of CR2 by sacrificing the turret, could suppressing fire for dismounted infantry be provided by, you know, a direct fire variant of either SV or Warrior.
Could SV be a medium term replacement for Warrior, yes, I think it could but we have to define what that replacement would look like. If we are OK with moving from 10 to 30 tonnes for our recce needs then a similar shift when discussing transporting infantry should also not be impossible.
I think we can all agree that SV Scout will be a fine vehicle, with all the top shelf components it bloody well better but the crux of the question has changed over this thread with discussion on numbers. if the Janes article is to be believed total numbers are going to be very small so even this hybrid development i.e. not starting from scratch, is looking increasingly poor value for money as we get the 100% solution in boutique quantities for a development price alone that could furnish the Army with significant numbers of good enough vehicles.
I might harbour fantasies about leading the pack and being at the cutting edge of combat vehicle development but for the tiny quantities we will actually end up with buying I find myself increasingly unable to justify this as even a fantasy.
My second major concern is about weight and size, the increase in both is entirely understandable but it is not a consequence free decision for many many reasons beyond air portability that only those with a a good appreciation of support and logistics actually see.
Blowing off this concern by pointing to Foxhound and Jackal is far too blithe for me and I still think there is a role for something in the 10-15 tonne bracket that is better armed, more mobile and better protected than those. Jackal might be fine against flip flop wearers but lets not see everything through Afghanistan goggles.
My position on Scout is ambiguous, I am no fan boy and I have serious concerns about the cost (not just capital or development) and weight/size issues but it will be a decent capability
Think Defence,
It is simple, an MICV is a vehicle that carries infantry and supports them with its medium calibre weapon, ASCOD-SV does not do that thus it is not an MICV. If you regard redesigning as pimping then yes you can call it pimping- a matter of definition perhaps but a questionable one nonetheless.
A Warrior replacement is kind of irrelevant for the moment, along with CR2 the OSD date is 2035- who knows whether that will actually happen or if it does what the outcome will be.
Bob, we have been trying to replace CVR(T) for 30 odd years so looking ahead to OSD’s in 2035 is certainly not irrelevant and unconnected programme stovepiped thinking like that is typical of the MoD and exactly we have a completely incoherent dogs breakfast of a vehicle fleet, A, B and C
Redesigning would to be involve significant form changes, a rear mounted engine for example but lets agree to disagree on the degrees of separation between SV and MICV, I don’t think it is advancing the debate.
Truce
Re Jackal/Foxhound, remember that Foxhount and Scimitar are roughly in the same weigh category and in terms of protection there is probably not allot between them (although Foxhound emphasises blast protection) and with its potential for weight growth to 10 tonnes Foxhound would not be far behind Fennek, the only area that it falls down is armament but so does Fennek.
Think Defence,
The difference is that when we were planning on replacing CVRT we actually thought we needed to replace it, there are no such thoughts in the MoD now regarding CR2 or Warrior. Also, redesigning does not mean that one has to relocate the engine. FRES-SV does not call for an MICV and thus it will not produce an MICV.
Hi Bob, I agree with the conclusion in
“one assumes it did not go on a Warrior chassis due to cost concerns), I suspect it will slowly exit out of the back door with little fanfare and be replaced by CAMM”
– but maybe it was the height as the system (radar included) needs to sit on top. Pictures of a Stormer being driven out of a Herc leads me to this conclusion
– CAMM with its active seeker is certainly a good replacement for Rapier (planned from 2020, I don’t know if delayed)
– Starstreaks passing away will leave a gap in
— AA for formations on the move
— AA for airportable and other light formations (RM included)
Hi TD,
I think Sweden cancelled AMOS both for the Army and Coastal Defence (CB90) in their defence review (I hope they have come to their senses since!).
Finland has all its AMOS on wheels, but I would not be surprised with a CV order as some of the brigades are on wheels and others on tracks (and the turret exists, so why not); Do you have a source for that one?
PS Why did you not tick Scout (prototype) for ASCOD?
Bob’s additional info ” leaving the 40 converted chassis (without their AMOS turrets) in storage? [in Sweden] would back up the 2013 for Finland as the two brigades that don’t have it would need 36 (they probably haven’t heard of “my 10% float rule” that would add 3.6 on top).
Hi TD,
Even though I agree that Terrier would be ideal (the fact that I bang the drum about misquoted unit costs for the first 60 does not change the other fact that high development costs are sunk costs and one should not steer by looking into the rear mirror).
BUT: I thought Gabby stated that the LAD guys use Warrior quite a bit? If we accept that (I am in no position to confirm) and take your stated requirement, then it is met even by this “The LAB two-part scissors bridge is 15.24 m long overall, being formed from box structure 7.62 m long ramps. Once emplaced, the bridge can span gaps up to 14 m (subject to terrain) and has a load capacity of MLC 30; it is planned to increase this to MLC 35.”
– of which two were actually delivered to Indonesia (by BAE, using Stormer chassis)
Not the LAD’s in Armoured Engineer Squadrons (AES), a Light Aid Detachment is attached to a squadron or regiment so in a squadron they would have enough vehicles to worry about without another type. None of them are currently established for Warrior
“It is simple, an MICV is a vehicle that carries infantry and supports them with its medium calibre weapon, ASCOD-SV does not do that thus it is not an MICV.”
I think the MICV argument isn’t about it’s role, Bob, it’s about the design of the vehicle itself. It’s a front engined vehicle with a hull roof that is high enough to allow troops to sit in the back and a spot, roughly central, for a turret. That’s basically, what an MICV is even if it’s not used as an MICV – ASCOD was, of course, originally designed to be an MICV.
AFV’s that are primarily designed to do other jobs (recce vehicles, light tanks and dedicated engineer vehicles, for example) generally put the powerpack at the back and most of the crew in the turret with the driver in a reclining position in order to allow the hull to be built as low as possible which reduces the profile as well as recucing weight (there is less area that needs to be armoured). I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t know but I think you’re getting a bit worked up about the MICV comparisons which many people see as not only valid but important.
If you take the back off a Ford Transit van and put on a pickup body nobody would argue that it wasn’t still a Ford Transit.
If it helps, one could say that the ASCOD, Warrior and Puma are all medium-weight, front-engined vehicles with a centrally mounted turret.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that it would be possible, if so desired, to create an IFV from the Specialist Vehicle family. It may come at some cost compared to the Scout variant, such as:
* Increased weight
* Reduced protection
* Reduced mobility
* A smaller turret.
* Maybe a one-man turret or a remote weapon station rather than a two-man turret.
It raises a few questions for me though:
* why would you want an infantry fighting vehicle that can be stripped away from the MBTs it is supposed to be supporting by lighter weapons or artillery?
* Why have two chassis in an armoured battlegroup?
Hi Bob,
Get that you annoyed that we keep talking about MICV’s, but it would actually really interesting and informative if you could give us an idea of what you think GD would have to do to take the FRES SV family of vehicles and add a Warrior replacement. Appreciate it may be hard if it involves commercially sensitive information (and I am not alone in suspecting you have more information on the programme than you can actually discuss).
Pete Arundel,
Oh dear. An MICV is a very specific variant, as explained multiple times before, it is designed to carry troops into action and support them with a medium calibre weapon (the Russians use something larger alongside in the BMP and the Chinese in their latest MICV), FRES-SV does not have that requirement and thus no MICV variant of FRES-SV is currently planned, there is no argument just fact- ASCOD-SV is not an MICV. Mr Fred’s description would be the best, the immediate comparison would be cars, you mentioned the Ford transit and that just shows how little you know. Modern commercial vehicles are built on common base platforms (architectures, chassis, whatever you want to call them) with standardised parts wherever possible- so actually you might well find that a pick-up and a Ford transit share the same platform but do very different things and are thus called different things. An example, the Ford Transit Connect used the Ford C170 platform between 1998 and 2011, that same platform was used by the Ford Focus. To bring it back to military vehicles, would you call Trojan and Titan MBT’s?
Mr Fred and Tubby,
Just so we are all clear, at this time there is no requirement for a Warrior replacement until 2035. Could an ASCOD-SV variant be turned into an MICV? No reason why not but if such a decision was taken it opens up all sorts of engineering questions and options, TD suggested an extra road wheel with an extended chassis, one could shrink the turret ring and make everything very, very tight, the chassis could be widened as well as lengthened- many many options. However, given the direction that protection trends are going and the fact that CR2 and Warrior have the same OSD my preference would be for a new and stressed for much higher weights (60 tonnes plus) common base platform to perform the role of MBT, IFV, 155mm SPH and relevant support vehicles complete with the usual array of scalable armour and growth options. I think, Mr Fred, that is what you are suggesting. Tracks is a given.
@TD
If i’m not mistaken, there’s even FV434 vehicles being still used in LAD units here and there. I’m guessing that the FRES SV recovery/repair variants will replace all these, plus Samsons.
Warrior FV512, 513, and FRES Repair and Recovery, plus the MAN Wrecker where present are going to do the job in the future.
All these vehicles should be able to support both Warrior and FRES and Terrier (lift and towing power are there, they have to be provided with the necessary train of logistics of course).
I don’t see where the big problem is with basing the bridgelayer on Warrior or Terrier. It might not be optimal to use Warrior, but it is not a tragedy either.
Besides, are we really sure that the FRES Bridgelayers end up into Armoured Engineer Squadrons?
Wouldn’t it be possible to have them attached directly to the Formation RECCE regiments, which will be their main users anyway?
In operations where the Formation RECCE is closely tied to AES ops, you do not need a dedicated bridgelayer FRES-capable, since there already are other, larger bridges capable to support perfectly FRES’s sizes and weight, and you could well use them at that point.
FRES SV vehicles will be found mostly if not exclusively in Formation RECCE, Tank and Armoured Infantry regiments.
Armoured Infantry and Tanks use Tank Bridges, BR90 and so along. And so will FRES.
The problem is giving an autonomous river-crossing capability to the Formation RECCE. Possibly without tying the RECCE movements to that of the Brigade’s engineers, i’d dare adding.
Have it your way, Bob, but like it or not ASCOD-SV is an MICV by all definitions other than role. Why do you think people keep comparing it to Warrior, Puma etc despite all your many attempts to explain that it’s not an MICV? It’s because the basic vehicle is. If CV90 had been selected for FRES-SV it would still be a modified MICV in just the same way that an M3 Bradley CFV is a modified M2 Bradley MICV.
In order to discuss the merits of ASCOD-SC people have to be able to compare it with what has gone before (CVR(t)), similar vehicles that are already in service (Warrior, Bradley, CV90) and what might have been (CV90-SV, anything feasible that could be designed). ASCOD-SV is based on or,if you prefer, evolved from the ASCOD MICV. ASCOD-SV will be a scout (or engineer or APC or whatever) based on an MICV even if it is never configured or used as such.
“However, given the direction that protection trends are going and the fact that CR2 and Warrior have the same OSD my preference would be for a new and stressed for much higher weights (60 tonnes plus) common base platform to perform the role of MBT, IFV, 155mm SPH and relevant support vehicles complete with the usual array of scalable armour and growth options. I think, Mr Fred, that is what you are suggesting. Tracks is a given.”
I remain unconvinced of the value of a 60 tons IFV which would be a nightmare to deploy and support abroad. It is awesome for Israel, but the UK would be able to use it almost only in case the enemy comes landing at Dover, so the vehicles can drive against them… Then again, we’ll see how GCV (weight expected to be 50 tons or more…) will fare, and we’ll judge from the US experience, i guess.
The idea of a common 60 tons hull is not bad, mind you, and the protection level would be superb… but it is the “rest” that worries me. I’m the first saying that airlifting heavy armor is an illusion, but this appears to be a dangerous extreme even to me.
As to AS90, it is expected to be replaced between 2020 and 2030. Before Chally and Warrior.
And i really don’t think a 60 tons (or 56 tons, like PZH2000) option is desirable.
Might i dare saying that the ASCOD chassis fitted with the DONAR 155/52 turret makes for the IDEAL, FRES-common replacement for AS90, delivering increased firepower compared to AS90 (greater range and rate of fire, albeit just 30 ready rounds are carried) at a smaller weight, more deployable, only 2 crew members to train and pay, and still well protected. http://defense-update.com/newscast/0608/news/news0706_donar.htm
I like it a damn lot.
By the way, Bob, thank you for your comments about my blog. I do my best with it, but there’s no doubt a long way to go to further improve!
Pete Arundel,
How do you still find this confusing? Even your own example of the Transit van has proved you wrong and you still don’t get it. ASCOD-SV is simply a base platform onto which one can build whatever one wants within the bounds of that platform, just like the Ford C170.
Gabriele,
No thanks required, I will always praise excellence when I see it. Re weight, I suspect we will always be on different sides of that debate. My preference is for heavy armour, firstly, the MBT will remain the heaviest vehicle on the battlefield so I see no reason why IFV’s and artillery should not be built to the same (or slightly lighter- remember scaleable armour) weight. Especially IFV’s which will face the same threat profile. I also like heavier vehicles because their physical size not only provides greater passive protection but also greater payload in terms of power generation and volume enabling the installation of things like APS etc. I think the US is moving in the right direction with GCV and the current Israeli move towards Namer and Merkava IV has impressed me (I also like the manner in which they are drawing fire support forwards with 120mm mortars)- just a shame the US cancelled Crusader. Just my preference though.
@percontator
Sorry, but I have only just seen your reply to my earlier comments (way back now).
First of all, thanks for the information about Land Environment Fleets Concept (LEFC). Makes for interesting reading.
I still can’t fully understand, though, why you believe that WFM would enable the Army to operate with only 3 battalions worth of kit for the five battalions planned for a MRB. Surely if such a brigade goes to war (as a full brigade, which it might sometimes do) it will need to bring in any reserve reinforcement fleet so that all the 5 FRRs (or BRRs now?) are at full strength? That would mean a substantial reserve fleet, wouldn’t it?
What I will concede is the very good point you make when you say “Even in Bob’s scenario, 1 of the 3 sabre squadrons in a BRR will be filled by light vehicles (Jackal/Foxhound) thereby cancelling out your extra 60.” That will alter the figures by an appreciable amount, although I cannot say that I am in favour of the move at all. The deficiencies of the Jackal were pointed out so graphically by Jed in an earlier post and Foxhound is not designed primarily as a Recce vehicle, is it?. While we are touching on this subject, do you feel that the Scimitar/Spartan hybrid is perhaps being developed with this role in mind (for the third squadron, I mean)? It would certainly be useful for an armoured element to support 16 AA Brigade (and I know that formation stands outside the 5 MRBs.) As you say, though, we are not yet aware of the future structure of the BRR and it is therefore difficult to forecast how many vehicles and of what type (Mastiff maybe?) are required for HQ and support squadrons. Surely, however, something as large and lumbering as Mastiff cannot be a serious choice for a reconnaissance formation.
Bob,
Agreed, Warrior is scheduled to be replaced in 2035. By that reckoning we will need to start the replacement contract in 2030 or earlier, depending on what that 2035 date actually means. Based on that, we need to have the competition done and dusted before the contract start, so allow another five years for bringing the specifications together and running the competition and we’re at 2025 and FRES SV is five to eight years old. At ISD of 2035, that’s fifteen to eighteen (or where Warrior was when Warrior 2000 was prototyped.) Re-hashing ASCOD would be possible but I think we could do better.
As you infer, I think that a common base platform for the heavy armour battlegroup would be highly sensible, with MBTs, IFVs, RRVs and APCs fitted with similar levels of protection. You could use the same chassis and exchange the level of protection for payload on ATGW carriers, load carriers, indirect fire systems and C&C vehicles.
This heavy platform need not be 60-70tonnes – perhaps you could manage 40-50tonnes with an acceptable level of survivability with modern materials and systems. However, I would not think that pouring money into light-weighting AFVs would be cost-effective. Rather than shrinking our ingredients (AFVs) to fit into the pie cases we have (C17s, A400Ms) we should consider making our pies bigger. The US Sky-tug or our own Skycat concepts could be the way to practically air-lift an armoured force of useful size with a useful amount of logistics behind them.
BOB
Can’t be arsed to argue with you anymore.
Eg you ref Foxhound – it’s wheeled so Ground pressure etc are vastly greater than CVRT so it will be worse over bad ground that ASCOD.
eg You make my point for me, re varients. Trojan and Titan were developed off challanger with relative ease.
Peter arundal gets the point, from your Olympian postions you obviously cannot see it.
I’m off to look at TD’s ship postings.
Fred
Man is supposed to live at the point where the falling angel meets the Rising ape.
At what point does the falling Tank meets the rising APC.
And at what point do we say we can get way with a 50 ton tank as a bit ‘light’ and an MICV thats a bit heavy and save on chassis development costs and support?
Bob
If you are not going to address the issues, others raise. Maybe the reason we keep raising them is because your own sweeping assertions don’t actually answer the points. Then there is no point arguing.
You obviously have Info on the project, but realy if at 42 tons it will stop a Hellfire or one of the big russian ATMs it will be a an advance indeed.
Likewise you build a better mouse then your friendly neghbourhood opposition will build a better (bigger) IED.
The usual ‘That’s classified’ statement is not big enough to hide behind.
Like I said can’t honestly be bothered do go back thru US equipment F*ck ups trying to develop the 50 kg MBT. Sherridan anybody..?
Like TW can’t really bother with this any more; you are a FRES SV Fanboy I hope you are very happy togetther
IXION,
In no way shape or form do Titan and Trojan make your point as they are not MBT’s, unless you think they are? Are you that detached from reality? And Pete Arundel does not get it as is demonstrated by his own Transit van example proving him wrong.
Classified is what it is, nobody is hiding behind, simply pointing out that from publicly available information we know the armour package will be scaleable, we know that dstl are working on it and that one round of blast tests have already been completed- infer from that what you will but with a crew of three and weight of 34 tonnes (not 42 tonnes, as you have been told multiple times that is the GVW growth potential of the common base platform not the combat weight of the Scout variant, so stop being deliberately misleading) the vehicle will be carrying a considerable amount of armour. As I have also told you before, I will not stop using evidence just because it proves you wrong, so once again, compare $817 million (exchange rate right now) to $7.6 billion. ASCOD-SV is good value for money if you know how much armoured vehicle programmes actually cost. And so what if Foxhound is wheeled and thus has higher ground pressure it is only 10 tonnes GVW maximum? it is designed from the outset for mobility. You seem to be of the strange belief that Scimitar is the greatest recce vehicle in the history of mechanised warfare and everything else is by default flawed- a very silly perspective to have indeed.
Finally, an IFV’s weight is not cast in stone, along is gets sufficient power there is no reason why it cannot be 60-70 tonnes, GCV may reach that weight and Namer (an APC granted) is already there whilst Puma is at 42-3 tonnes with maximum armour (its predecessor programme the Marder 2 was also a heavy vehicle)- the trend in IFV weight has been upwards for some time.
Guys, I think we are dancing on the head of a pin with this MICV thing and being pedantic is not helping matters.
We are all entitled to different opinions and sometimes there is a matter of perceptions
But because I am a glutton for punishment and do enjoy the cut and thrust, as long as we can all play nice here is my take on this
Trojan and Titan are not MBT’s but they are MBT derived. Are they a significant departure from an MBT, yes, I think they are. Lose the turret, lose the main gun, add a load of role specific equipment, different crew arrangements and yes of course, change the role. Although the heritage and commonality is obvious, they are different.
Now when it comes to Scout we can look at the similarities and differences. Trojan look very very different to CR2 but Scout looks very very similar to a Pizarro or Warrior or Bradley so although how it looks is only part of the issue, it is a big part. Similarities between Scout and the generic MICV; tracks, engine/transmission layout, driver position, turret, medium calibre automatic weapon, coaxial weapon, commander and gunner positions, sensors and yes, even a rear door. So in short there is a great deal of similarity but what about the differences…
Dismounts, none.
No dismounts means its not an MICV either in function or designation BUT, and it’s a big but, its not a million miles off is it. So whilst I consider the design difference between Titan and CR2 to be significant, the difference between Scout and MICV is much much less.
Does that make it a MICV, no, agree with Bob.
But it is very very similar and theres no getting away from those simple and irrefutable facts.
We can agree to disagree but for me, Scout is an MICV lite, with a different role.
Carry on :)
At least HMS Darings radar works well. Sources tell me it is currently tracking several teddies flying through the air.
Ixion,
I think that APC or more particularly IFV should rise to meet the MBT. There are those who argue that the MBT should be lighter and if that is the case, the IFV does not have to go as far. But the IFV should be on a par as the MBT it supports. As such I don’t think that the IFV would ever be “a bit heavy” unless the MBT it accompanies is “a bit heavy”
IFVs to date have been APCs with increased armament. The APC has enough armour to weather artillery fragments and small arms fire but nowhere near enough to go toe-to-toe with a proper AFV or withstand artillery-delivered smart or cluster anti-armour munitions. MBTs increasingly do have this protection, so the IFVs – those vehicles that fight in concert with the MBTs- really should be armoured and armed to complement the big gun tanks.
Modern IFVs mount sensors and fire control that would shame many current MBTs, and as an asset they are at least as valuable, so I think that it is high-time for protection to follow suit.
No we can’t agree, Scout is a recce vehicle, not MICV about it, lite or otherwise. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of the post.
On a few other issues
Foxhound is designed with appropriate mobility for its role so let’s not be kidding ourselves it is an adequate replacement for a tracked vehicle with an exceptionally low ground pressure, We seem to be putting a lot onto Foxhounds shoulders and whilst it might be OK as a lightweight recce vehicle on hard surfaces it is not going to be any use on boggy summer ground down South or up North, or snow.
I agree with Bob that we sometimes see the recce world through CVR(T) goggles but that is for a good reason, because it has been proven time and time and time again so it’s a tough act to follow. Its definitely time for it to go though.
On development costs, you can’t compare SV with GCV because one is built from an in production vehicle with extra and new bits and bobs and one role, another is a ground up concept with a massive span of variants and chocked full of innovative ‘stuff’ Plus of course, it’s the USA so expect huge budgets. I would be genuinely interested to see the development costs for Bionix II, Anders or Dardo for example. Perhaps they might be more comparable.
Or even Trojan and Titan
Having thought about this a bit, I can see the advantage of going heavier but only if we had something CVR(T) style as well, as a lightweight supplement for when those attributes are more important in the ever swinging mobility v protection pendulum. We are making a big mistake if we think Jackal or Foxhound can replace CVR(T) because it can’t.
Might I propose calling it what it is. An Armoured Fighting Vehicle.
seems fair Phil, if only to move on
Think Defence,
CVR(T) has proven itself because of its presence not necessarily because of any particular brilliance of design, has it not occurred to people that perhaps the decision to pursue a heavier and better protected vehicle arose from end-user feedback? Jackal/Foxhound is not replacing Scimitar- a combination of Jackal/Foxhound and ASCOD-SV Scout.
That is exactly why I reference GCV- for all the people who want a revolution, some laser armed hover tank with a hybrid drive or whatever else they happen to think is cool that day, there it is, thats how much it costs, and simultaneously the risk factor goes through the roof. I provided the development costs for Puma, Challenger II, and ASCOD earlier.
Gabby
I don’t see a problem with a bridging variant of SV or Terrier, but not Warrior
I think you misunderstand the implications of adding another vehicle into an armoured engineer squadron. Personnel, spares, training, the list goes on. This is why I am always banging on about commonality.
The bridging requirement for SV is causing a lot of head scratching . It definitely needs one but then why deploy a bridge of limited classification that can’t support the follow on armoured forces so that thought train points to more Titans but then that creates its own problems.. With CVR(T) it didn’t really need that much bridging support that couldn’t be provided by a non-armoured field squadron so one was never developed. The point about Scout is that it operates at some distance from the main force so those Titans that are supposed to support the armoured squadrons will have a massively larger area of operation.
Aaaaghhh, ,my heads bursting!
On your point about the FRES Bridgelayer not being in armoured engineering squadrons, I think you really don’t appreciate how things like this work, sorry, but assault bridging, the recce element, preparation, deployment, operation of the bridge site and recovery are specialist RE tasks. Plus, attaching them to recce squadrons means there deployment cannot be controlled at a regimental or brigade level, military engineering resources are always in short supply so nailing them to units is simply not the way to do it. An RE field or field support squadron do not operate in tight groups as a squadron but their component troops will be all over the place.
You are close to identifying the problem though but it’s not about giving recce units an autonomous bridging capability but operating your bridging resources over a much larger area and how operational tempo can be maintained.
This is another of those weight implications
@ JBTRX
I appreciate that weight has its disadvantages, I just think we’ve reached a stage where it’s become neccessary in modern AFV’s, in order to stand up to the wide range of threats posed.
Now if the medium armour requirement was separated from the scout requirement, that might change things a little. It depends. The modern trend seems to be scouting via fire, on the move, as opposed to scouting by stealth.
For me, one of the biggest equipment losses as a result of Afghan/Iraq will be the venerable Land Rover. While I see that they’re not particularly much cop against an IED, I’m just not convinced this should drive out the Land Rover entirely. It has proven its worth time and again as a light, mobile, versatile weapons platform.
I’m just not sure I buy the whole “IEDs forever” type argument.
Bob, it has occurred to me that Scout is based on end user feedback but then so did a lot of abortions that have managed to drip their way into service so don’t ask me to put blnd faith in user requirements. If all we did was listen to end user requirements we would still be wearing scarlet
Gabby, what makes you think Donar would be a good AS90 replacement, apart from the obvious chassis commonality which if course is a big plus point.
The PZH2000 is the most consistently over rated piece of equipment since the BAe lightweight 155mm. It is seriously complex and in warm weather, having horrendous reliability problems, AS90 might benefit from a longer barrel but the basic design is sound as a pound. Donar might have a greater ROF but will run out sooner than an AS90 so the actual number of shells on target in a given time is arguably different. Plus, because Donar is automatic its ROF is constant, it can’t do a rpid fire burst and bugger of pronto.
Not impressed I am afraid
We most certainly would not be wearing scarlet, end-user requirements rarely cause abortions, that is usually done by the people attempting to implement them. FRES-SV has the advantage of having been born out of a decade of continuous operations which have covered an incredibly wide spectrum of operation types- it strikes me that one could not hope for a better incubation period.
Mr Fred
I have wondered about the point of 30 + tons Medium Armour, when it is supposed to play with MBT’s whether confronting them or opperating in partnership with them.
After all if the idea is 65 ton MBT is partnered by an APC/ MICV then the bridges (yes them again)* ; will have to be the same strength and all the support equipment the same power (transporters etc).
So lets move this on a bit..
How much mobilty do we loose by going from 30 or 42 to 50 or 60 tons really? once you get beyond the dimmensions or weights of commercial transportability. Into Wide loads and heavy equipment transporters?
Would commonality of componants weigh off against increase fuel use etc?
Thoughts please…
* Bridges and bridging/Swimming /wading Use to obsess the USSR. Try crossing Europe east to west you run into river after river….
CHRIS B
Many years ago (60’s I think), the UK declared (rather presciently actually) that the soft skin vehicle had no place on the battlefield.
Unfortunalty the battlefield has just got bigger and bigger, until it encompasses the the whole theatre of opperations.
The IED Tiddles is out of the cloth receptical, and is not likely to climb back in.
@ ChrisB –
accepted.
do you see a use for a mid-weight tracked recce/fire-support vehicle in the 11-16 tonne weight class?
regards
JBT
Mike W
Brief reply as I’m off on hols in the morning.
Only 1 btn in each MRB will be an AI btn equipped with WR. Only 1 brigade from the 5 MRBs will be on ops/high readiness (and thus fully equipped with all its vehicles)at any one time (6 month period).
Up to 36 Scimitar 2 vehicles are to be ordered for use in Afghan
@ IXION
IED’s take a long time and a reasonable degree of skill to prepare. They must be sited somewhere that you can expect enemy forces to pass.
In a conventional war, this is unlikely, not least because of the danger to friendly forces and the requirement to use artillery rounds etc for their original intended purposes.
For a follow on, counter insurgency campaign, then I can see the argument for withdrawing vehicles like Land Rover.
However, look at Iraq (1991). The SAS made great use of these vehicles in flying coloumns out in the western desert. With it’s light weight and utility I still think it has a use among infantry formations in a variety of roles. In a place like Afghanistan I still think they can serve as patrol vehicles around bases like Bastion.
I believe the Land Rover has more legs than people give it credit for. I also think we’re learning more about the IED threat in COIN wars, as well as learning about the dangers of getting involved in such wars in the first place.
@ JDBFTRX
I’m not sure to be honest. It seems there are a number of roles that have cropped up for light vehicles, including but not exclusively;
– Deliberate recon; Scouting enemy positions ahead of a main thrust by a large force, such as prior to the Iraq invasion(s),
– Immediate recon; Or recon by fire, as we’ve heard happened once ground operations in Iraq got moving and commanders found themselves using Tanks to do recon work,
– Infantry Fire support; gun carrying basically. Base of fire and all that,
– Special ops work;
– Support of insertion work; whether supporting a heliborne force, air landed (at an airfield/airport somewhere), or even taken in with Marines after the initial forces have landed,
– Close Defensive patrols; Of own positions, bases etc,
So the question is, where does an 11-16 ton vehicle fit in there? Some of those roles I see as being better performed by a Land Rover, with dismount work expected in some cases. Some of that other work I think is better handled by units themselves, that is, an armoured force sending a troop of tanks forward (when we over throw the MoD and take over British defence, can we please force the armoured units to use the words “section”, “Platoon” and “company”?).
That’s the problem I have right now with lightly armoured reece units. I think they have too much armour and firepower (and thus burn too much fuel, require unique ammo from support units, limit deployment options) for some roles, but not enough armour really for others.
I’d like to see all units trained really to do their own scouting, so recon would be done by Challengers, for Challengers.
It reminds me of Wolfgang Schneiders book on German small unit tactics during WW2 ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panzer-Tactics-German-Small-unit-Armor/dp/0811732444/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314831678&sr=8-1 – a truly excellent, practical, “must read” book). In it Schneider describes how Panzer units would be trained and expected to do their own recon work, something which the US learnt was the way forward themselves about 60 years later.
So I don’t know. I think I need to swayed by a very persausive argument, having reviewd the situation in as much detail as I am currently able too.
@ Bob,
I think where people take issue with your reference to the US program costs is because the US are hoping to end up with an all bells and whistles bit of kit that will rock their world etc, whereas our requirements are much simpler.
Therefore to compare the two is wrong.
You would expect the development of a new Cessena high wing, prop driven monoplane to cost a great deal less than the development of a brand new, business orientated, twin turbine, luxury private jet.
The MICV argument seems to be centred around not what it will be, but what it’s based on. I think people are merely trying to point out that ASCOD is a modified version of a current MICV, not some revolutionary piece of kit from the Planet Krypton.
Catching up with last nights comments:
Mr. fred “we need to have the competition done and dusted before the contract start, so allow another five years for bringing the specifications together and running the competition and we’re at 2025 and FRES SV is five to eight years old”
– so WR replacement hots up about the time when the “stringing out” of those SV versions that are absolutely necessary have finally been produced in numbers sufficient for MRBs
– and will collide head-on with the other FRES requirement; and we will be discussing the borderline and/or commonality of AI ad MI (requirements)
To me the evolution trees of APC/IFV/Scouts is interesting, but is mainly about nomenclature. The real discussion is of course (but currently obscured by the extreme budget constraints)the limits for (the desirable)platform commonality (several of them, but we only tend to have the luxury of one new one at a time, with which we actually have the discretion to decide).
Moving on to two of TD’s points:
“Blowing off this concern by pointing to Foxhound and Jackal is far too blithe for me” and Bob’s clarification “Jackal/Foxhound is not replacing Scimitar- a combination of Jackal/Foxhound and ASCOD-SV Scout”
– Jackal spec exists; just about all of the protection is in the lower half though
– anyone seen a spec/ photo for a Foxhound recce version?
Second point, about bridge laying assets and RE more generally “attaching them to recce squadrons means there deployment cannot be controlled at a regimental[BG?] or brigade level, military engineering resources are always in short supply so nailing them to units is simply not the way to do it. An RE field or field support squadron do not operate in tight groups as a squadron but their component troops will be all over the place.”
– exactly the reason why my hypothetical Armoured BG (that I had to x-reference from the Army Structures thread)is so “rich” with RE; A whole Squadron, thus to be able to contribute those component troops to where they are needed
Finally, if we take 36 Scimitar 2’s as a fact, in the longer run they should be
– in the 16 AAB (direct replacement)
– and if Warthogs get concentrated into one high-mobility unit, the rest should be used as direct fire support of equal mobility(in addition to mortars, mounted on the Warthog platform).
This last point is not a direct answer to Jedi’s question (which was much broader)
Chris B,
I explained precisely why I reference the GCV programme above if you had bothered to read it. My point is that if people want something revolutionary and spectacular that is how much it will cost. By comparison the relatively conservative FRES-SV development programme is good value for money.
The MICV issue is very important as it is is about role as well as designation. FRES-SV provides a base platform onto which multiple variants can be built (common in the automotive industry as Pete Arundel found to his humiliation) and there are currently no plans for any MICV version (the I being for Infantry) and it is for that reason that Warrior is being retained.
FRES-UV is barely worth discussing at this point, from an MoD perspective anything that has been pushed to the 2020+ time-frame is effectively dead (outside force 2020 and many CSPs away so nobody has to worry about it). The question is which out of the current menagerie of APC and APC like vehicles in the inventory will be retained to fill the role for the time being.
“Plus, because Donar is automatic its ROF is constant, it can’t do a rpid fire burst and bugger of pronto.”
Are you telling me that you push the button and it just… goes off and off and off?
I’m guessing the crew has the ultimate voice in deciding if and when the round is effectively fired.
Seriously, what the hell do you want from your self-propelled howitzer?
Looking at IFPA, the Royal Artillery seem to want:
Reach – 100 km GMLRS, ATACMS requirement to 300 km and Fire Shadow are quite clear indications of this wish.
DONAR fits the role well with its longer barrel and range
Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Hit – again, DONAR meets it
Getting more rounds on the target in less time is, at least 90% of the time, desirable and advantageous, despite what you say.
Save for the rather small 30 rounds on-board reserve (perhaps something can be done about it…?), i really can’t find a defect in the ASCOD-DONAR system.
Less personnel means less expense.
Hull and mechanics could be fully common with ASCOD SV.
The howitzer is top class.
The overall weight and sizes are advantageous for deployability.
I don’t think there’s another system which offers all this, available on the market.
On the bridgelayer requirement, i think i can see your objections, but still, i cannot fully agree either.
RE Donar “Save for the rather small 30 rounds on-board reserve (perhaps something can be done about it…?)”
– the original prototype was built on the GMLRS carrier; would that one have more space? On the other hand, do you reload the magazine from the outside? If this is the case, then a separate carrier would not be much of a disadvantage
“common in the automotive industry as Pete Arundel found to his humiliation”
Bob, I mentioned Transit vans and you started talking about the Transit Connect – a car derived vehicle which is only a Transit in name. Since I was only explaining, in simple terms, just why people keep refering to ASCOD-SV as an MICV despite you pointing out (correctly, I have never argued otherwise) that ASCOD-SV will not actually be an MICV I fail to see how I have been humiliated.
The funny thing is that I wasn’t even arguing with you!
“the original prototype was built on the GMLRS carrier; would that one have more space?”
No, it was the same, or less. The ASCOD-DONAR is a bit bigger and better protected, weighting around 31 tons.
The M270-DONAR weighted 27 tons.
“a separate carrier would not be much of a disadvantage”
Like the armoured shell carrier that is coupled to US Army Paladin howitzers, indeed.
Problem with such an approach is the cost, as always. How do you fund the ammo-carrier…?
Pete Arundel,
Why thank you, I certainly shall.
Re AS90; Its OSD is curious given that it is quite a young system (order placed in 1989 for 179 vehicles, there was an option for further units that was never exercised) making them roughly the same vintage as Challenger II and Warrior (arguably younger than Warrior). There was talk in the late 80s of a dedicated ammunition resupply vehicle but it never happened and Foden trucks were ordered instead. As Gabriele rightly points out the Army seems to be moving towards very long range ground launched precision strike, GMLRS being good, fire-shadow being bad, oddly they have still not stumped up any money to integrate LMM into Watchkeeper to my knowledge.
RE “Re AS90; Its OSD is curious given that it is quite a young system (order placed in 1989 for 179 vehicles,”
– is there an OSD? Aren’t all the replacements just speculation and we might see the number of tubes per bde to dwindle down as a plethora of solutions replaces them (not necessarily another 155)
– some more were made in Poland, for their Army;unclear from the sources onto which SPG platform (the factory was the same that made the Soviet models to be replaced)
ArmChairCivvy,
The Polish system was Krab and it was a new “indigenous” chassis, the end of this year their should be 8 of them. There are always OSD’s, they work with the Governments/MoD’s bizzare internal accounting arrangements. I would be inclined to agree that they may slowly disappear from view but it would be something of a shame- they have proved useful, especially in Iraq, the undertaking of the previously proposed upgrades for the system would nicely expand capability and service life, alas there now seems to be a fascination with fancy rockets and missiles. With that said, the post 2020 timeframe has become a dumping ground for all the nice to have but can not afford things (see FRES-UV) because it puts it all beyond the Force 2020 goals and nobody has to worry about it until the 2018/19 spending review and at a push the 2022/3 one.
Chris B
I see your point about IED..
And I can see that even Jackel, is abest part armoured, so maybe the landrover type vehicle has legs (although the veicle itself is shockingly old fashioned).
However its remains a very much open country vehicle Desserts etc One ambush with a GPM and it and it’s ocuppants are swiss cheese..
“And I can see that even Jackel, is abest part armoured”
Unlike Foxhound.
Hi Bob,
I am not aware what those “the undertaking of the previously proposed upgrades for the system would nicely expand capability and service life” might be.
– but I believe that as a (support) platform it has outstanding mobility (mind you, the Russian 122 SPG produced in thousands was also amphibious), and as it was designed for the fluid battles as part of BAOR, it also has a decent sustainability
I agree, sometimes it looks that “fires” are going a bit too fancy – I would emphasize more having both direct & indirect as integral parts of formations (in todays terms – BGs… but BGs as defined so far by BA (at least as they appear on Wki as officially they are ‘ad hoc’) tend to be tiny)
Forgot to say how I love the Polish designations (for direct & indirect):
– langoustine, crab. lobster…
– claws directly proportional to the reach (in km) offered
So, if there are only 8 of the 155’s the 1 AMOS must be on that same ‘indigenous’platform?
– I am speculating, but they have shown understanding for the benefits of shared platform by coming up with Anders (or are they on that one, too?)
ArmChairCivvy,
There have been a multitude of proposed upgrades ranging from the usual sustainability stuff through to a 52 calibre barrel and guided munitions.
Re, Poland, first I have heard about a Polish AMOS, there is a requirement for a 120mm mortar though (RAK). Anders is a “private” design but clearly vying for the Bwp replacement that BAE has been praying for for years.
Gabriele,
Are you sure on the 2020 OSD? I am certain I have seen 2030 somewhere?
Hi Bob,
Comes (AMOS & turret, that is) from the same company as these:
IOC: 2004
Total Production: 1,470
Total Program’s Cost: USD$96 million
Production: 1,446
Unitary Cost: EUR€2.1 million
Also Known As
AWV 2014 Project (Swedish Army)
Badger (South Africa)
KTO (Polish Army designation)
Rosomak (Polish Army nick)
XA-360 (Finnish Army designation)
Somehow, even though Rosomak has been a smash hit, the Polish preference is to put it on tracks rather than wheels.
– it is only a prototype, but check out the designations and you’ll see where it will fit relative to arty pieces (GMLRS included)
The Poles have certainly kept the soviet love of artillery, they have a fancy C4I system to support it to. I am still unconvinced about this Polish AMOS however there is an indigenous single barrelled polish system.
Bob – reading lots of comments from last night (I am in a different time zone) your deportment really pisses me off. You may not be as arrogant as you appear, indeed you seem to know your stuff and make intelligent comments / arguments, and like myself, you certainly seem to have an opinion about everything – but my opinions are generally based on 16 years of experiences in uniform.
However, you come across as a little immature at times. Your comments appear highly condescending, many of the other commentors here might be arm-chair generals, however they have a right to voice valid opinions – hey I don’t often agree with many of them, but I try desperately NOT to take the “tone of voice you do” however exasperated I get. I know Phil would argue that one needs a thick skin to collaborate in a discussion on the inter-webs, but I disagree, and after half an hour of reading it has driven me to write this…….
So, I don’t want to descend into name calling, but I implore you to take a little more of a mature attitude – perhaps read over your comment before hitting the submit button. For example consider that how ever many times you rehash the same words, there are other people in the world who know what an MICV is (you never know, we may have ridden in the back of them once or twice) and that you are not the only expert.
OK – off we go, back to more interesting things like Polish Artillery…. :-)
Some interesting debates ahead I think on artillery, indirect fires, precision attack etc etc
This will be the subject of a future post but just to stoke the fires, some things we might mull over
Is 105/155 the right mix, what about a single intermediate calibre like the Russian D30 or even a bit smaller like the RN 4.5″
Do we need traditional armoured self propelled system like AS90 anymore
Where do mortars fit in, is there a case, for example, for a 120mm
The bunfight between RA/AAC and RAF for extended range attack
The role of sythetic training systems
Counter battery fires, or more likely counter rocket and mortar fire, do we have the right equipment mix
Where does naval Gunfire and land attack fit into the matrix
Are we going precision crazy and ignoring the utility of flattening grid squares
How can indirect fires support a larger area of operation, is longer range or greater mobility the answer
How can we organise direction and management of indirect fires, is it a recce or RA task
What about UAV’s and CAS
Lots of interesting things to discuss
What about the impact of greater urbanisation
What about rockets, is there a case for a smaller round
Good stuff, TD, looking forward…
Amen to the single calibre. (I think)
If we are talking abour increasingly guided shells then smaller that 155 mm MAY be acceptable, With the accent on the MAY – that is a debate to be had. 105 seems to be regarded as a bit ‘light’
How about Navel 127 mm or D30. Uk only moved from 5.5 because of Nato.
As far as flattening grid sguares is concerned Ian Hogg’s point that if you lined up a hundred or so 5.5s and fired them at something it generally did the trick during the war and the shell was not briliant (South africa developed a nice EFRB for theirs).
The only problem is the tyranny of NATO standardisation and even the old soviet block countries moving to 155mm.
Otherwise 3 cheers for all that to be discussed.
Jed
I know I have fallen into getting arsey and suppercillious with some people from time to time, usally when I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they started it. So Glass houses and stones and all that…
However well said sir.
Polish automatic weapons and armour in general is well worth a sniff about..That Anders thing looks the dogs bollocks tho don’t it?
Jackal is barely armoured.
IED teams regularly encounter IEDs big enough to destroy it and sadly so do the Jackals. It’ll take the smaller IEDs no problem but there is a definite limit.
It hasn’t got armour against small arms fire worth mentioning. None at all against air burst or artillery.
Like Land Rover, it has its place. But one must think about how and where it is employed like every vehicle.
Hi guys
I’ve seen Fireshadow mentioned a few times in this thread – Is that the loitering munition? If so, can some explain to me please (as a complete novice/armchair general etc) the purpose of this?
As far as I can tell, it’s just a kamikaze uav. Wouldn’t it be better just to arm a uav, then you would have a re-usable platform. Having a throw-away, hi-tech weapon seems an extremely expensive way to conduct warfare considering all the cuts being imposed.
(Sorry if this is the wrong thread to post this).
Ixion – ROFL – as my 8 year old son says “what-everrrr” :-)
As far as flattening grid squares – MLRS baby !
I think we discussed at some point in one of the Army threads putting the AS90’s to the TA as a back stop for major war (39 calibre barrel not getting upgraded for greater range etc) – so I think the question would be ASCOD based Donar variant because it sticks to TD’s them of commonality OR one of the lighter wheeled 155mm systems.
On the question of NATO commonality – time to ditch the 105mm light gun in favour of 120mm mortars ? Less range, more ammo types, even lighter and more portable ???
TD – good questions, I am currently reading William Craig’s Enemy at the Gates (yes, the inspiration for the sniper mover) which is all about the wider Stalingrad campaign – to support their northern counter attack the Soviets brought together 3,500 artillery pieces to support a thrust by 3 tank armies (yes, armies, not divisions….) – the pre-H hour bombardment pretty much broke the back of the Germans Rumanian allies who ran.
So do we see a threat / potential threat for massed fires as opposed to precision fires in the near future ?
great book that.
is there still a possibility of moving heavy artillery into the TA’s, seems pretty sensible to me.
perhaps as additional squadrons to regular battalions in the same way FR is roled………..
“Are you sure on the 2020 OSD? I am certain I have seen 2030 somewhere?”
The RA Bulletin 2010 says that studies are ongoing for a replacement for AS90 in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.
“they have still not stumped up any money to integrate LMM into Watchkeeper to my knowledge.”
The requirement exists, known as ATUAS (armed tactical unmanned air system) and the RA hopes to obtain funding for integration at some point, but it might be four years still before it can be done.
I covered it all here, if you want to read more about it: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/future-force-2020-royal-artillery.html
“As far as I can tell, it’s just a kamikaze uav.”
“fire-shadow being bad”
Hate me for it, but Loitering Ammunitions in simulated warfare scenarios prepared by NATO in the last decade have ALWAYS been battle-winning assets.
Fire Shadow is the best bit of kit after Watchkeeper that the RA is adopting. It really is a misunderstood system, but i’m absolutely convinced it is NOT a bad system.
I suggest reading this RUSI study about Fire Shadow before judging, and i also recommend remembering that Fire Shadow has the eye of the Royal Navy for use inside Sylver cells on Type 45 for surveillance/attack at range.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Loitering_Munitions_36-39.pdf
Fire Shadow Block 1B will go online in Afghanistan next year, during Herrick 16, if i remember correctly, with a battery of 39 Regiment RA, the GMLRS users.
The God of war loves big battalions and he has a soft spot for artillery.
Most casualties in WWII were caused by mortars and artillery. It doesn’t matter how professional your army, it is as vulnerable as a peasant army against massed artillery fire. Artillery fire will also strip AFVs of a lot of their nifty optics and sensors. Mortars around the 81mm calibre are extremely responsive, give no warning and are therefore highly destructive and useful in all spectrum’s of warfare. They are also highly accurate when the MFO/FST, Mortar Line know their jobs.
The double edge to artillery is the huge logistic train needed to manufacture and supply and stockpile the shells.
Massed or precision fires? Like infantry and tanks, you need both.
Reading this thread reminds me of when I worked at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL today)…the leading academic expert on reflection cracking (this where you lay asphalt over jointed concrete, and then a crack is initiated at the joints of the concrete pavement) had done loads of modelling and constructed small scale test pavements in his lab, and concluded that reflection cracks started at the bottom of the asphalt and cracked through to surface. However at the Transport Research Laboratory, they actually looked at what happened on sections of test road and runways, and took cores, and in all cases where the crack was not full thickness, the cracking started at the surface of the asphalt surfacing and cracked downwards. It was many years before we could persuade the top academic in the field that his model was wrong based on an actual data collected from real life.
For more info see:
http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/Infrastructure/Kamal_(2004)_A_model_for_top_down_reflection_in_cracking.pdf.
I never worked with the lead author, by I did work with the second author, Mike Nunn, and I did manage and conduct research for Defence Estates on the issue, as reflection cracking results in a FOD risk, and significantly increases the expense of maintaining runways and taxiways which have been asphalted over to deal with the issue of the aggregate coming loose in the surface of the concrete, and fretting at edges of the concrete joints.
@ Bob
Fella, you need to get your stories straight. At the start of the thread you made ASCOD sound like the second coming of the space shuttle. Now you’re telling people it’s a simple, modest program.
As for the MICV argument, understand this point; No body is talking about a FRES MICV right now. Read that, read it again, then read it a third time for luck.
All people are saying is that ASCOD SV is just an updated version of a current MICV. Which it is.
I favour the wheeled atmos style truck bases systems for cheapness abut also for deplyability after all these are long range systems.
Chris B,
My story is straight, you are just picking a fight, ASCOD-SV represents a low risk good value for money programme that will provide an outstanding vehicle using the best components currently available on the market- just as I have said all along. All round a logical, and sensible choice.
IXION,
That would be great, unfortunately one of the key lessons from Afghanistan is the need for armoured artillery mobility, one of the primary roles the Wolfhound undertakes is artillery tractor because it offers a level of protection not found on basic trucks.
Again Bob; “Might” or “we hope” or “we believe”, not “will”. That’s manufacturer speak you’re using.
And you’re still not addressing our concerns. £500 million pound for 7 vehicles is not good value for money. If ASCOD is such a wonderful vehicle that merely needs a power, drive train and comms update then why £500 million?
At this point I’m sure you’ll reach for the American program but if you’d kindly leave that on the shelf that would be lovely.
The American program costs so much because their plans are significantly more radical. All GDUK are supposed to be doing in this “low-risk” program is making a few engineering changes.
So again, why £500 million? You seem to have a good handle and level of inside knowledge on the project, so tell us, where is the £500 million going?
Tell us about why ASCOD will cost that much, but please refrain from using the words “outstanding”, “low risk”, “world beating”, “step change” and “forward leap”.
You’re the man with all the answers, explain to a mere civvy such as myself what £500 million will buy us, given that we know GDUK already have the vehicle built.
Where does the money go?
*thread deviation alert, thread deviation alert*!!
Although i should know better, having had many years of armour experience, with ref to earlier comments on not having a warrior ABLV due to extra spares training etc etc. With the AS90 drawdown, could we not hand one over to the boffins to deturret it and with it’s emmense size sort out a command vehicle for the RA. Common chassis and all that, orginally i wouldn’t post a mad idea like this but i’m so bored with the bun fight above even my glass eye has fallen asleep!
ps
i would prefer the RG35 4×4 as a gun tractor would feel safer in that and the 6×6 version in flatbed/pickup mode as resupply.
anywhoo have fun with the suggestion it was only for shits and giggles (and if it was feasible that’s 60 more warriors to play with)
Chaps, can we move sideways to discuss artillery, just done a holding post
The best thing about this place is the good natured debate so when things get a bit tetchy, as they sometimes do (I am guilty as well) all I ask is that everyone takes a deep breath and step back. We can disagree, we can argue, we can even get annoyed with each other but this is getting tedious now
Can we all wind necks in a bit
Chris.B,
All has been explained before, multiple times, please read above. Your concerns have more than been addressed, the point of the American programme is that it provides context, if you want radical be prepared to pay nearly ten times more than FRES-SV. £500 million is just not a lot, compare to Challenger II development costs or Puma development costs. And for that £500 million, a small sum of money, one gets a bespoke common base platform in 4 variants with considerable growth potential and an outstanding combination of systems in seven prototypes and the associated trials. I am sorry if big numbers confuse you but £500 million is not even that big. If you could have been bothered to read earlier in this discussion this would already have been explained to you. Although it is amusing that you want me to stop using words and evidence that prove my point just because you do not like being wrong. ASCOD-SV will be world beating and will be a step-change in capability for the British Army (not just my words but also Chris Foss’s- renowned Jane’s armour expert). And GD does not already have the vehicle built, unless you are aware of an ASCOD driving around complete with an 805hp engine, Puma transmission, 40mm CTA gun, Thales Orion sights, a chassis and running gear stressed to 42 tonnes, a comprehensive power and data management system based on the latest UK Def-Stan etc, ???
i did try TD, even opened myself up to verbal pasting (not like i haven’t been whoop assed in a crewroom “debate” before)
god loves a trier Paul :)
*takes the US program and puts it back on the shelf where it belongs.
I knew I’d missed a word. “Bespoke”. How silly of me. But I must stress Bob that your claim “to stop using words and evidence that prove my point” is a bad signal Bob.
Saying the word ‘outstanding’ or ‘Step Change’ is not evidence. It’s an adjective, and it’s an opinion. You believe it will be outstanding. You have no proof, no evidence that it will.
And my maths may not be brilliant, but luckily Windows has a calculator. According to said calculator, 500 divided by 7 is a little over 71.4. That means Bob, that your seven ASCOD development vehicles will cost over £70 million a piece. For that I could buy 7 Typhoons Bob.
The base vehicle for FRES exists Bob. All you have to do is put an engine in it, change the transmission, put a new gun and some optics on, plus bolt in the electronics.
Now that can go one of two ways;
1) An easy task, a simple case of jiggling stuff about,
or
2) a complete redesign of the basic vehicle, requiring significant changes.
In the case of 1 it should not cost £500 million Bob. In the case of 2, tell me then why we’re buying ASCOD? If that much work is required, why don’t we spend just a little more and build a brand new vehicle that is much better suited to our very specific needs.
If GDUK can do a complete redesign and testing program for £500 million then it shouldn’t cost too much more for a specific built new design.
So Bob, which is it, 1 or 2? And where is this £500 million going? Hmm Bob?
Bob and everyone, I think we are pushing the comments count on a post but lets go back a few points
Lets be clear, £500million IS a lot of money.
When we are binning off a Bay class to save £10mil a year or giving people brown envelopes I think we need to be less blase about half a billion quid as a down payment on a development project.
Lets also be very clear that 500mil does not buy us the family of SV variants, it buys us the common base platform and Scout (unless the contract has changed, Bob, let me know if this is the case) demonstration phase. Production vehicles will be extra, as will development of all those other 14 or so variants we want.
Bob makes the point that in context, that is not a lot when compared with Puma or GCV, its a fair point but those are apples and lightbulbs, SV Scout and CBP is an evolution of an existing design. I also wonder how much the original ASCOD development phase cost, or the Dardo, or Bionix II. Come to think of it, Bionix II might be a better comparison. An all round improvement of an existing design.
That aside, the development takes a collection of existing off the shelf systems and fits them into another existing off the shelf chassis, I understand from GD’s press release that the 7 demonstration chassis will be lifted straight off the Santa Barbara line but perhaps I misread that. I would assume that some extra work is being done to accomodate the extra power and weight but this would seem to be relatively simple engineering that could be modelled in CAD. All the modelling would have been done on Pizarro 2 so there already exists a baseline
If we look at the challenges of integrating the uprated MTU engine and Renk transmission we might argue that they are dimensionally either idential or very similar to what is in the latest production variant of Pizarro
The gun and turret is also going into Warrior which will also be costed to the MoD so can we actually count all of that. The gun has been bought and paid for over a long period, it was in TRACER, that shows how far back it goes
Armour, sounds like a lot of new work is gong into this area
GVA, a lot of work already done
CIDS, lets be clear, this stuff has been commonplace in the automotive industry for ages, it might be new to the Army but the technology is mature
Tracks, already in existence
Sensors, a collection off off the shelf stuff it would seem,a lot of which we have suported the development of over the years
This is why people tend to scratch their head when they look at £500million, if its just a collection of stuff from the top shelf, could this not be done cheaper. its a genuine concern and not to be blown off with a haughty flick of the wrist
Bob, I have asked many times but you seem unable to take the hint so let me be direct
Wind your neck in mate, your attitude is getting on my tits, I want TD to be broad church and I put a lot of effort into encouraging people to join in, you are taking the piss now
I feel I must deconstruct some of what I would light-heartedly call “Weasel-Words”, with apologies to Scott Adams:
“ASCOD SV will be a step change for the British Army”
It’s true. But it’s hardly a particularly lofty aim. What they are replacing is a forty-year old vehicle based on a forty-five to fifty year-old design with an unstabilised, clip fed gun, bespoke and multi-level electrical system added to and altered during its service life. A vehicle that is operating at fifty percent above its original design weight. For the vehicle to not be a step-change would be astounding.
“The gun and turret is also going into Warrior”
As far as I know, TD, although the gun is going into Warrior, it will be fitted in a modified version of Warrior’s current turret. The ASCOD-SV turret will have a much larger turret ring than Warrior.
Thanks for the correction Pete
Does anyone know how much Bionix II cost then, would seem to be a reasonable comparison
And back for some more comments on ThinkDefence’s post:
If the gun is bought and paid for, why was there another contract last year to qualify the gun and ammunition, indicating that it had not been sufficiently proven up until then. (£11m before it is put in a vehicle)
GD makes much of how the turret ring of Scout is 1.8m diameter. Warrior has a smaller turret ring and Lockheed is claiming that they are not modifying the hull, so how similar are the turrets?
GVA is a set of requirements from the MoD. How a private firm is able to implement it is not pre-determined.
Integrating a drivetrain isn’t as simple as physical fit. You have to integrate it. Make sure all the power goes to the right place, doesn’t set up any nasty resonances in structure or electrics.
Sensors may be completely off the shelf, or a series of off-the-shelf parts or some combination of the two.
Thanks Mr Fred, this is what I am trying to tease out.
£500mil is a lot of money but is it a lot of money for what we are getting.
With the gun, what I was getting at is that the majority of the cash for its development is not inside the SV programme
Let us be clear, £500 million is NOT a lot of money for what “we” are getting, an entirely bespoke market leading vehicle in multiple variants, compare to any large tracked AFV programme you like, I have given you the numbers for several but you choose to ignore them. There is a strange notion here that developing armoured vehicles is cheap and easy, it is not, it is an extremely challenging engineering task that is being made ever more so by the proliferation of systems- for instance integrating a GVA into a vehicle with turret (when you want that GVA to carry data like vehicle health, ammunition status, CBRN information, BMS information, voice comms, video, power etc) takes time, effort and money.
Bob, can you clarify what variants we are getting for the initial tranche of investment
Here’s the thing Bob.
Again you say “an entirely bespoke market leading vehicle in multiple variants, blah, blah, words and stuff”
Those are just words. That’s not an explanation. That’s not evidence.
You’re not building anything unique. You call it market leading, I say how so? Nothing about this is new. It’s just a different combination of pre-existing components.
That’s not market leading in any shape or form.
RE “Sensors, a collection off off the shelf stuff it would seem,a lot of which we have suported the development of over the years”
-I would be very disappointed if there isn’t integration with sensors that are not on the Scout (have asked the question; no answers; possible that this is within the classified bit?)
RE “indicating that it had not been sufficiently proven up until then. (£11m before it is put in a vehicle)”
– shake, rattle and roll; is it reliable in all temperatures; how quickly the barrel (or something else) wears – huge number of rounds going to be fired for that money, among other things
Chris B,
Yes they are words, in case you have not noticed that is how human beings communicate, I knew you hated facts but taking your disdain to language is a new low even for you.
Once again this has already been explained to you, find another vehicle in service or currently in production using a cased telescoped gun, Catherine MP based thermal sights (you should really read about Orion), a plug and play vehicle architecture, custom flexible armour package, built to new MoD mine blast standards, etc. All with the ability to grow the vehicle weight to 42 tonnes, increase the engine power by 25% and ramp up electrical output to 1000 amps. When you find this combination in one vehicle come and let us all know. And it would be nice if you provided some facts because so far all you have done is scream and shout without any supporting evidence. I just want to reinforce the point that if you could be bothered to pay attention or read through the thread I would not be having to explain all this publicly available information to you.
Think Defence,
My understanding is that the development contract will take the first four variants (recce block 1) to production ready standard and cover detail design work for later variants.
Just to add a bit more context to that £500 million, not only does it compare well with other armoured vehicle programmes (again I have provided figures for Challenger 2, Puma and GCV) but it really is not a large sum of money in the grand scheme of things, it represents less than 1/60th of this years MoD total departmental expenditure limit and it is spread over 4-5 years meaning it is less than 0.5% of the annual MoD budget for the next 4 years.
There has been a lot of talk here about “just” doing this and just doing that. A project of this complexity is not that simple as Mr Fred alluded to. The prototype vehicles will be covered in sensors, those sensors will track everything from temperature to vibration, they will check the transmission is properly tuned, the new suspension not only works but is tuned to the vehicles weight range, they will check the environment inside the vehicle. The vehicle will be tested in conditions representative of the environments in which it may operate (climatic wind tunnel- MIRA did the same for Ridgeback and Mastiff) etc. GVA is not a product but a standard, CIDS is GD’s interpretation and it needs to be designed bespoke to the vehicle- it is not simply something that one can bolt on. A new scaleable armour package is being developed in collaboration with DSTL, that has to go through the usual ballistic, blast and environmental tests- as will the turret for the scout version. Even things like arranging the crew compartment will involve considerable work to maximise ergonomics and simply make sure everything fits. On top of that it will probably have to undergo tests to ensure that electrical interference is reduced as far as possible between the various systems. This is an extremely complicated piece of engineering and it costs money but for a programme that will bring together the most advanced armoured vehicle sensors, engine, transmission, armament, vehicle network and provide a common base platform for multiple variants £500 million should be neither surprising or considered expensive.
Right you lot, I have deleted a load of comments that don’t add anything, this being the first time since I started TD that I have had to resort to the delete button. I have asked everyone to mellow out and it hasn’t happened.
Next step, comment locking
I put far too much effort into this place to see it descend into insults and name calling, you bunch of twats :)
Bob, you should know better, final warning
Is it safe to delve back into this topic now things have cooled down, still don’t think we have bottomed everything out.
Would anyone agree that Scout, for all its gucci features, is actually quite a safe and conventional design even accepting band tracks, plastic hulls and hybrid drives might not be 100% mature.
If you cast your mind back 3 or 4 weeks I linked to the GD brochure for an ASCOD Scout. This has a mast mounted sight which in an era of increasing urbanisation has obvious utility, we already use ROTAS in the Talisman Mastif and it has been integrated onto a Jackal as well. This is not exotic technology, yet all SV Scout will have is a conventional commanders/gunners sight
Problem?
I would comment but I’m frightened of further humiliation . . .
TD
Not going near this thread for all the tea in tescos.
@ IXION
Can I interest you in some world leading tea mate, £100 a bag? ;)
Dear God, please can we bring this thread to an end!
Chris B
Suddenly I’ve come over all MOD like with excitement: –
Will it be world leading Tea?!
Will offer unique capabilities?! –
Will all the other tea drinkers be jelous?!
Will I have to pay £.5 billion for development even though it is a mix of already available teas?!
Oh yes Oh yes I MUST HAVE IT!
I know we could market it, lets call it
‘THE FRES ONE’
Ta da!
I thank you I will be here all week….
FRES Brew might be better.
Without wishing to re-ignite the earlier shenanigans, it would be interesting to compare and contrast vehicle programme costs.
Puma, for the development phase, apparently cost €350m in 2002 (€444m in 2010), which is as close to £350m as makes no difference, for five single type prototypes
VBCI is €2.8bn for 630 vehicles, so that’s an overall unit cost of €4.4m. If one were to assume that the development phase was €500m, then the unit cost is still €3.6m each, which is within the realms of possibility
Challenger 2 was £90m in 1989, which means £175m today, for one vehicle.
EFV cost $15.9bn, so that’s the cost from an innovative, ground-up, high performance wotsit.
Hi Mr. Fred,
This is the angle that interests me, also that you have to look at the numbers in the context of the minimum required for the planned formations to be effective.
I would use Patria AMV as a proxy for FRES UV (when ever and at what kind of numbers is for later):
Total Production: 1,470
Total Program’s Cost: USD$96 million
Production: 1,446
Unitary Cost: EUR€2.1 million
Now we are talking about an upper-end type of vehicle, so the ones that are more relevant
-VBCI is €2.8bn for 630 vehicles, so that’s an overall unit cost of €4.4m. If one were to assume that the development phase was €500m, then the unit cost is still €3.6m each
– which is good value when you compare to well over 5m euros for each Freccia (production well under half of the above though)
Bob gave us good info on the SV costs but the issue was clouded by the “dreamt-up” ie. pre_SDSR numbers.
Any guesses for a unit cost within the Freccia-VBCI range, meaning between a third and two thirds of a thousand units? Only then we can start to assess the value vs. e.g. Warrior upgrades @ £1.5m a piece
Aren’t the Warrior numbers based on a pre-SDSR assumption as well? Something like £1bn for 650 vehicles?
More info. the Korean K21 cost $80m for the pre-production development with a unit cost of $2.8m (£1.7m). Very cheap indeed, and quite a tasty bit of kit.
Have a look at Bionix II as well
Yes ” based on a pre-SDSR assumption as well? Something like £1bn for 650 vehicles?”, but
-has anything changed re AI (=5 x 80 appr)
– the demand for specialist versions has gone up, if anything
a. bridges for ASCODs
b. RA wanting to double the numbers from a 40-59 base
c. no mortars under armour cover (light or heavy) when the older family is withdrawn
d. take away the 70 that have had money spent on them already (over the horizon reserve for East of Cyprus; if we have an acclimatised reserve for the Far East, shouldn’t this also be a priority, rather than being absorbed into the MRB required numbers?)
The crux of the matter is that if the 650 or so are upgraded and allocated wisely, we can at some point actually move from SV (satisfied with lesser numbers) to SU, which is going to cost a lot regardless of what we buy – because of sheer numbers.
Not so impressed with the Bionix. Conventional construction, lighter and less engine power than Warrior, same crew and better weapons, chances are it has less protection and less scope to add more.
The K21 is innovative, well armed and armoured, with a composite hull, modular applique armour, a 40mm cannon derived off the Bofors with all the modern goodness added on, ATGW and nine dismounts (although it’s got to be pretty cosy in there)
Hi Mr fred,
It is hard to disagree!In fact, I love it.
K21 is from…”Doosan is a large Korean conglomerate, whose best known brand is probably Bobcat construction equipment.
-about 28.67 tons, thanks in part to a chassis that will reportedly be built out of fiberglass. In addition to weight savings, this may avoid some of the mine lethality problems experienced by vehicles that use aluminum, which quickly becomes molten and creates additional hazards.
– amphibious:7 km/h (about 4-5 mph) in water,
– MICV (no doubt about that):crew of 3, plus up to 9 troops.
– an “active defense” system against incoming rockets ad anti-armor missiles.{SURELY THIS IS NOT IN THE PRICE?]
– An unspecified armoring system that is expected to use a layered composite made of multiple different materials
– fuel tanks are reportedly soft and self-sealing, in order to help absorb the impact of a projectile or blast
– a stabilized 40mm cannon [Must be Bofors as the Bushmaster of that size does not have any users?]
– independent sensors and sights for the commander and the gunner, similar to Germany’s Puma IFV and the M2A3/M3A3 Bradley”
Not bad, and the price is not far off from wheeled alternatives
I was referring to it as something to compare and contrast costs to rather than an alternative because it took an existing design and improved it in all areas, which sounds a reasonable comparator to SV Scout. See what you mean about the specs now, having had a quick shufty.
The K21 is very interesting although they seem to have a habit of sinking!
I have also had a read of a piece from the guy in charge of TRACER over the weekend, especially the reasons for its cancellation after Bob’s points. Basically the guy said the reason it was killed off was because the US FCS programme was sexier but that it could have been affordable for the UK if only the MoD had traded down a few specification and performance criteria. This would have been in service now and likely on its improvement programme.
Kind of confirmed my original thoughts. a real opportunity missed
Digging around I wasn’t able to find costs for the Bionix, or I would include it for comparison.
ACC,
Aluminium becomes molten at something like 600 degrees Celsius. It conducts heat far better than steel so you have to have enough heat to overcome that so you need intense, sustained heat or heat applied over a large area. In either case I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it long before it got hot enough to melt.
Definitely a Bofors derivative. The manufacturer of the weapon has a license for the Bofors.
@ IXION and Pete
— Our tea takes the best leaves from the worlds teas to creat a unique, outstanding, world leading blend that will be the envy of everyone. Never before have these specific leaves been blended together in this combination.
In addition, we use British built lasers to cut the bags to precise measurements, then fill them with tea right here in Britain. The boxes are made in Britain too, out of only the highest quality cardboard and foil wrapping, made in Britain of course.
NB: All Tea bags come fitted for, but not with, string.
Chris B
Yea and as for the spec for the water…
Army to be fitted for but not with Kettles by 2030
You want Kettles as well?
Hmm….
Regarding the previous comments on stabilisation, you can’t implement it on Scimitar due to power and space requirements. However, were you to rehouse some of the radio components in the now-larger chassis, uprate the electrical power generation systems (done?) and put a beefier RBJ (turret interface) there are several off-the-shelf solutions available that even interface to the existing sights that would fit.
Of course, it would still be a Rarden, and you’d still have to load clips yourself, but it makes the vehicle infinitely more useful (and do you then need FRES SV, really?)
ball park figure according to a website
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/bi_intro.htm
The first Bionix 25 production vehicles were completed in September 1997 and, under the phase 1 production contract awarded to STA, production will continue until 2001. While no details of the quantity have been released, it is understood that the order is for at least 300 vehicles and is valued at around US$596.5 million.
same website
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/bi_intro2.htm
The Bionix IFV40/50 spots a one-man cupola mounting a 12.7 HMG and a 40mm AGL. At 21tonnes combat weight the IFV 40/50 carries 9 troops in addition to a crew of two. It is reported that the unit price is around $A3.6 million.
(By Ian Bostock – Asia Pacific Defence Reporter February/March 1998 issue)
so either usd$2 million or $aud3.6 million for bionix ver1. Ver 2 changes to 30mm gun and improved armour plus blue force system.
so chances are it will cost at least 50-100% more.
imo if the cost includes development then it will probably be much higher.
Singapore will spend to develop local industry futhermore there is a need for replacement of 1000 m113 with either bionix/bronco/terex combination in time.
Also 1000 m113 is not enough for the combined active+reserve forces. Hence already there is a new build of 1000 bionix/bronco/terrex combination on top of existing m113.
“This is not exotic technology, yet all SV Scout will have is a conventional commanders/gunners sight”
The BAE CV90 Scout offer had a Selex Galileo EO JANUS sensor turret on top of the turret, probably with the 5-meters mast (don’t know for sure, in the photos the JANUS is always show down, but i think/hope the mast was folded)
Also, are we really sure that all sights and sensors have been frozen and contracted for Scout? I don’t think so.
Gunner and commander optics have been chosen from Thales UK, but i don’t think this automatically rules out the addition of more role-specific kit later on in the development/trials phase.
I suspect that, given enough scope, adding stabilisation gear to a Scimitar turret wouldn’t be so difficult.
Electrical systems have become much smaller than in the 70’s so if you did a complete tear down then re-build with modern systems then you would probably have room and to spare. You would still need to upgrade the electrical generation though.
Hi all,
Steve Coltman’s sceptical comment about the make-up the MRBs (still tbc?) woke me up to Paul g’s from almost one and a hlf years ago, on that old thread;
“It looks a bit like the BAe wheeled IPV, SES. it’s turning circle is 7.8m due to all wheel steering which is not bad seeing as it’s 7m long! (not a neutral turn i know before the track queens start).
Anyhow if someone has more info or an opinion on this vehicle jump in, if BAe are involved maybe get it built here, or at least trialled, i’m all for competition and not just looking at what the states have got.”
– Brunei is now buying the same base, but all the very latest JANUS things on it
On a specific point (there has been scepticism expressed ) of
” 7.8m due to all wheel steering which is not bad seeing as it’s 7m long! (not a neutral turn i know before the track queens start)”
– BTR90 does better, when you relate the turning to its length, ie. abt the same as tracked alternatives (how? no idea – but the their marketing videos prove it)
I think we’re singing from the same songsheet ACC, i was looking at alternatives after the “trials of death” for FRES uv. I couldn’t see how, with all the different versions of 8×8 out there they could only find 3 to trial, The emerging (and existing to include BTR90) technologies from the east should be embraced, we did it with warhog and it has been proven to save lives, I had a cabbie in that in 2001 at the DVD in aldershot, so it’s been around and offered for some time.
Think Defence,
Have to disagree re-Tracer, knowing people really in the weeds of that programme it was years from a production vehicle- lots of very fancy technology but not so much with the maturity. Lets put it this way, the UK knew that it was not worth fighting to save.
What emerging technology from the east?
1) K21 is only tasty if you are a man eating fish: it drowns its crew
2) Warthog (the best of the bunch) is basically a fat Viking- to the point that what used to be Hagglunds is very upset about it
3) Terrex was largely designed by Timoney (as is a lot of stuff from that side of the world)
4) Bionix is actually very lightweight and apparently rather simple in its execution
Problems with Scimitar go way beyond the silly un-stabilised RARDEN and its little clips. The turret is frequently branded as too small, it is short of electricity generation and it is rumoured that the overloaded hull keeps cracking and the air conditioning sucks.
Active protection systems are something else that armchair people get their knickers in a twist about (along with hybrid drives), the only one that is any way proved operationally is Trophy. They cost a fortune to design and procure, are finicky and suck large amounts of power and volume.
K21 only drowns the crew if you drive it into deep enough water. I don’t care much for amphibious vehicles so I wouldn’t recommend that it be used as such. If you take away the amphibious usage, it has very promising specs. If you don’t then it is still better than most Western tracked IFVs, none of which can swim at all.
Bob, your comment about armchair experts getting our knickers in a twist about hybrid drives and active protection systems displays a lack of appreciation for future threats and the realities of fuel logistics, which I am sure your did not mean to do but nevertheless, thats how it reads
As vehicles get heavier and engines increasingly move up the power bands then fuel usage is rising at an alarming pace, we struggle now, let alone if we were in a fast moving manouver operation so your haughty dismissal of hybrid drives is the reaction of someone who fails to appreciate the logistic effort, manpower, cost and overall strategic implications of rising fuel consumption and decreasing availability coupled with an operational context as defined by various visions of the future that recognises supply chains will be increasingly targeted and fragile. Do you know the attrition rate for fuel deliveries into afghanistan, the number of lives lost and overall cost. If we can think about reducing fuel use by careful application of rapidly maturing hybrid technologies then I for one think that is very important, so yes, i am an armchair expert in that regard
What are you
As for active protection systems, I dont think anyone is saying they are not complex, costly, introduce tactical complications but then I don’t think anyone is saying the race between offence or defence is standing still either. There are many ways in which we can improve protection against a range of threats, active systems are just one of them, to be considered.
But please, do crack on.
As for TRACER, if we are doing a spot of name dropping then fair enough, I will take your word for it, but don’t forget, there are always differing opinions and viewpoints.
As mr Fred quite rightly states, the K21 is pretty advanced in some regards, as is the Bionix II. I don’t quite so easily dismiss the far east weapons manufacturers because from where I am standing we have spunked over a billion quid up the wall on finding a replacement for CVR(T) with not a production vehicle in sight so obviously, we have all the answers
Just a quick note Bob, Think Defence welcomes everyone, I really do mean that. The objectve is to get people talking about these matters, stimulate debate etc, so if you want to benefit those that give a shit about the UK’s defence and related issues then perhaps a more constructive tone might endear you to those that hang around here
Think Defence,
Erm no, it displays a full appreciation of armchair engineers, something very different. Such technologies have a place, like so many before them that place lays further down the line than some people, including their initial inventors, think. And they are not the silver bullets that so many think they are- hybrid drives, for instance, come with their own bundle of issues and have not come to dominate the market yet for good reason, not least because of technical maturity.
I do not dismiss Eastern manufacturers easily , but I do know their design origins and their current limitations. If they keep investing cash at their current rate they will soon catch and overtake the west, but for the time being they are heavily dependent on western design support (Timoney and KMW amongst others). UK money spunking over FRES is a product of failure to commit as much as problems with engineering- as you yourself have more than highlighted. The UV problem could have been solved by sticking with MRAV (Boxer), which ironically would now give a degree of engine commonality with SV, FLAV was too soon and pointless and TRACER was overly ambitious technically, politically and financially.
And something I meant to point out earlier. Challenger II development cost was not £90 million. That is only what it cost the government. The story goes back to 1980, when Iran cancelled its Shir 2 order and brought Vickers to the precipice of bankruptcy the UK was kind enough to cancel MBT80 and order Shir 2 as Challenger I, thus saving Vickers. Over the course of the next decade Vickers discovered its tanks were rather un-exportable (even when they were just a Vickers turret on a Leopard II chassis in the case of the Mk7). Consequently, when a cost shy UK discovered Challenger I to be less than optimal and decided they needed a new Tank Vickers lobbed its full weight into making sure that tank was Challenger II and not M1A2, thus they and their supply chain coughed up another £25.6 million on top of the governments £90 million for a total cost of £115.6 million (1989). Amusingly Vickers and then BAE spent the next decade and a half discovering that a slightly improved intragenerational bodge job is no more exportable than the base model and so BAE terminated Challenger IIE.
I’ve been wondering; not as a serious proposition, but more of a thought experiment:
Could we revive the Scimitar?
Since the original was designed, power switches, relays and control electronics have become much smaller. Optics that in the ’70s were the size of fruit boxes and needed car batteries to run are now small enough to mount on a rifle and efficient enough to run off AAs. New aluminium alloys have been developed that avoid the stress corrosion cracking of 7000 series alloys used on many armoured vehicles of the time whilst giving as good or better protection. Welding technology has also improved. Weapons technology has advanced those weapons that have had money spent on them so that they remain competitive.
If it’s possible or not, I don’t know. In no particular order:
1) Re-chamber RARDEN for 30x173mm to take advantage of modern ammunition (3mm case length? both derived from the same cartridge? It has to be possible.)
2) See if a suitable fuse-setter could be incorporated into RARDEN to take advantage of the programmable ammunitions.
3) Strip out all the old electronics and electrics, replace with new. Small and light as possible, maybe partially external for non-critical pieces.
4) Keep the setup as integrated as possible – no separate displays/controls for different systems
5) Repair/replace old hulls with modern alloys and welding
6) Band tracks
7) New sights – maybe use sights directly linked to the gun like the old image intensifier sight in the mantlet. Some RWS have superb sights linked directly to the gun
8) Stabilisation – nothing too fancy, but if you can drive the turret by hand then you can probably drive it using nothing more than a couple of battery drills if you don’t want to go too fast.
9) Commander’s sight. One of those nice ball sensors on an extending mast – not huge extension – just enough to get visibility from a turret-down position. Maybe dismountable so you can put it on a bigger mast when in laager
10) Comms. Not too much, preferably networked so you don’t need too much range (hence power and bulk) One long-range set as a backup in case the chain back to the battlegroup gets disrupted.
Mr Fred, sounds like a great topic for a post, by the way, have you seen what Jordan has done with their Scimitars
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/
Hi Bob, glad you are back,
RE:”What emerging technology from the east?
2) Warthog (the best of the bunch) is basically a fat Viking- to the point that what used to be Hagglunds is very upset about it”
– ST warded off the Swedish lawsuit by waving a Russian license for the technology under their noses
RE “the only one that is any way proved operationally is Trophy”
– not everyone is constantly at war, and can therefore market all, abundant weapon systems as battle tested
– Boxer is going to A-stan, maybe we get to hear back
Mr.Fred,
There is no particular reason why that could not be done, the obvious issue is of course that you would soon find yourself effectively designing a new vehicle. One of the issues with Scimitar is the amount of stuff that has been added to it that was never anticipated, so power generation is an issue, and then the protection. But like everything else, it depends what your standards (read budget) is.
I understand that they have managed to fit a Russian 2A72 automatic cannon in there. An impressive feat to route the feed belts, but I don’t know much more than that. I will have to have a look.
ACC,
The Russian license may have been waved, but it did not convince our Swedish friends, and of course the technology is still a license.
Perhaps I should have been more succinct re APS, few have made it to service, many have drifted in the dark lands of ministry power points as “development programmes”. Certainly not an overwhelming body of evidence to determine success at this stage- if anybody can make them work it is Israel.
stuck in fallingbostel, late 80’s we were the unit that did all the TOGS upgrades on C1, however 1 day a leopard 2 “never” came into camp the day before a shitload of suits turned up. Spoke to suits, gas guzzling yank wasn’t even close to been picked, the leopard however according to rumours was 2nd by a photo finish ie picking german even in the late 80’s was a no no politically
Isn’t the rumour over on ARRSE that the Scimitar 2 (or whatever it will be called) is being manufactured now under UOR is to provide new build CRV(T)’s as the one’s in the field are developing crack’s in their hulls – just like Bob said?
While I appreciate Bob’s comment about new equipment, presumably they are not putting second hand running gear in new hulls, and what we have is the bizarre situation where they are fitting existing turret’s on new hulls with all new electronics and drive train?
Out of interest, if we did build a new turret in due course to go with a new hulls of the CRV(T) and built it reasonable numbers, what would be the best weapon to use – 25mm Bushmaster, 30 mm Bushmaster II or would we better of maximising the space in the turret and fitting a .50 cal? This is BTW a thought exercise, I neither endorse or condone the possibility of building new CRV(T)’s
oh forgot, malaysians use 90mm scorp, spartan 2000, stormer and stormer bridgelayer. More importantly Mr TD one of their corps is the Kor Jurutera Letrik dan Jentera DiRaja (translated as royal electrical and mechanical engineers) oh and the Rejimen Askar Jurutera DiRaja is RE.
Got sidetracked before, looking at john deere “springer look a likes” by fu*k we were ripped off!!!
by one of your own as well Paul, stinging
If we were going completely new, then there are a number of options. A 30mm Bushmaster II would potentially allow access to a 40mm round if the supershot ever comes to fruition. A 40mm GMG would be interesting, if paired with a coaxial machine gun and fed from under armour. Or a 30mm Mauser – they’re pretty small and can be set up with a blistering rate of fire, or a slower rate and a fuse-setter. The Russian 2A72 is another interesting gun. Less powerful in KE terms than a Mauser or a Bushmaster, but still pack a punch in HE terms and have smaller overall size rounds.
Hot of press, DSEi will have cvrt mk2 on display. Should be good to get some facts on the what’s new and what’s reused in the vehicle.
Hi Tubby,
RE ” the bizarre situation where they are fitting existing turret’s on new hulls with all new electronics and drive train?”
– it is perfectly adequate (a UOR) for the A-stan uses
“if we did build a new turret in due course to go with a new hulls of the CRV(T) and built it reasonable numbers, what would be the best weapon to use”
– CTA? I know the turret is ridiculously small, but so are the “inside the turret” dimensions of the gun
– BAE is building CV90 turrets (haven’t checked the dimensions, like the ring) in their other factory. Through a simple barrel change (no turret modifications) you could start to use the 40mm Bushy modified to take the wide range of Bofors rounds
I think I’m exposing myself to some flak here, let’s see what the folks say
Thanks Mr.Fred and ACC,
One of the reason’s I posed the question was I wondering given the eventuality of FRES SV, do we really need a cannon on a future CRV(T) 2 “scout” or would it be better to have a lighter weapon and use the space in the small turret for better sensors? It was really an attempt to understand the role of a light scout that is designed to avoid a fight in the future MRB’s (though I should nail my colour’s to the mast so to speak and say I think that we will get a lot less FRES SV than expected and that we will end up in due course with new CVR(T) 2’s which I anticipate while being very pedestrian will be significantly cheaper than FRES SV and be used to fill out the numbers).
With regards to the Scimitar in Afghanistan can anyone tell me if it’s being used in the role it was intended for or if it is being used as a light tank able to get in places that other vehicles cannot and to provide fire support?
paul G,
The curious way Army and Ministry worked in those days (the good old days were rarely that good), there was a very strong lobby inside the the establishment for the use of gas turbines in MBT’s. They had been studied extensively at FVRDE in the 50s and 60s (the first gas turbine tank was actually British) and the competition to power MBT80 had been a very close two horse race between a 1,500hp RR Motors CVR12 and the Lycoming AGT1500- the diesel won just a matter of months before MBT80 became a victim of Persian Spring. For Challenge II, Leopard II is actually said to have been ruled out fairly early on due to concerns over protection. The Army, including the Director of the RAC and the Commander in Chief of BAOR both spoke in favour of M1A2. The biggest concern seems to have been that it would require two types of ammunition for the MBT fleet, one for the L11 on Challenger and one for the Rheinmettal gun on M1A2. Of course that is ironic because a few years earlier a British gun (firing one piece ammunition) came a close second to the Rheinmettal weapon in the competition to arm M1A2 in the first place.
Re CVR(T)2,
As Jonesey points out DSEi should reveal more but a couple of things spring to mind. It looks from what we have seen so far that there is nothing special about this mash-up even if it is a new build hull. The other thing that crosses my mind is timing- as a UOR the Army gets two years free use before they have to start paying for it themselves which means it might just make it to a major wind down in operations without taking from the core budget.
If one were to go hardcore on CVRT a whole range of things could be done to the point where you would rapidly end up designing a new vehicle.
@bob, i see what you’re saying it was quite(ish) exciting at the time, all hush hush and hessian over the windows of the hanger!
obviously that far down the food chain we didn’t get all the details, but were told by the suits it was the bottom half that was the main point of interest.
those “good” old days we had at one point 3 chally ARRV’s, 4 chiefty ARRV’s and 3 cent ARRV’s!
billy smarts had nothing on the mighty 7 panzerfeld workstadt
paul G,
Can you clarify, you were told that it was the Leopard II hull and automotives that was the main interest?
Hi Tubby, further to your idea of lighter gun and more sensor load (I didn’t take up your idea of ramming them all in the turret):
No one has so far shot down my proposal, but Scimitar is only 2.24m wide and Spartan 2.48. So whether the turret would fit…?
Anyway, that was not the answer to your further question, whereas the following quote is. It is based on a Fennec like idea: enough fire power to get away and lots of sensors in the back, to do the primary job
“RCWS 30mm, produced by RAFAEL Armament Development Authority Ltd. has recently completed a series of successful field tests in Finland and in Israel.
Both series were carried out on actual fighting platforms; in Finland on the Patria AMV and in Israel on the Achzarit APC, and covered different combat scenarios at a variety of ranges.
The RCWS-30 was developed for use on any modern, light-armored, high-mobility fighting vehicle; new or upgraded. Its unique design provides light weight, low silhouette in its folded-down position – compatible with C-130 or A-400 air-transport, generous elevation range (–20° to +60°) – in its extended position, unlimited traverse range
(± n×360°), minimal occupation of the vehicle internal volume. The RCWS-30 remote control capability enables the gunner to assume a safe position anywhere inside the armored vehicle, and allows an optional take-over by the Commander* – to designate targets and operate the weapons.”
– this thingy is so new that the dimensions have not been published, but the earlier versions of the same family only needed an aperture (turret ring for us)on top of the chassis slightly in excess of 100cm
Earlier in the thread I suggested that Scimitar size/ weight recce vehicles may have been granted a second life, by substituting active armour (not reactive, even though that may be complementary at times)for the weight of armour protection.In that class Bob was “advertising” Trophy that comes from the same supplier
——
* surely the Spartan hull is not too short of space, starting with the 3+4 man config. But perhaps of power (we will soon find out); add all the sensors, aircon etc. The benefit of this configuration is that you need not have more than a three-man crew: driver; Commander- turned-gunner-when- needed and a dedicated sensor fusion operator in the back (fusion meaning optionally other sources than just those on the vehicle; how much do you want to be emitting on a continuous basis, whereas passive receiving is much better, and the “bursts” of transmission out equate to shoot& scoot tactics)
RCWS30 also shows a massive silhouette in its folded up position. If one must go unmanned (and it is not popular in the British Army) then the Rheinmettal Lance or the Kongsberg medium calibre offering would be a better choice.
Hi Bob,
When you need it up, you are pretty close to shooting… then, no doubt where you are
– for a recce asset, time to get away!
The whole idea is that the sensors would be up 90 % of the time, and the turret not restricting (through its volume to fit them) nor in the way
– all kinds of fiddly bits in those sensors; you would want them down when the shooting starts?
Honestly I would avoid the monstrosity that is RCWS30 full stop and stick with something that is a proper unmanned turret, there are at least 3 available that come to mind just off the top of my head.
I agree, its a bit of a monster isn’t it.
It does however provide the advantage of a very high elevation
Come to think of it, does anyone know what the elevation limits are for Scout, what with the Army recognising its not well equipped for operations in built up areas where you think elevation and depression angles on your primary recce asset might be something of a major specification item. I know the CTAI 40mm doesn’t have a very large turret intrusion so hopefully they will be sufficiently high
@bob it was the AQMS that got all up and close and personnal (we all saw the leopard go in, not hard it’s not exactly small) However, it’s 20 odd years ago but just emailed a mate who was there also, he said i got it wrong way round it was the top half, bear in mind we weren’t covering ourselves in glory on the CAT shoots at the time!!
Think Defence,
I do not know for the turret being used on FRES-SV but the LANCE-RC and the RCWS30 will both go to 60 degrees.
Is 60 degrees enough and what about depression angles?
Paulg,
Thanks for the reply, indeed, poor Chally I. Vickers loved the bottom half of a Leopard II so much they put their Universal turret on top of it and marketed it as the Vickers Mk7!
-20 for the Israeli gizmo, if I remember at all, it is -5 or 6 for tanks in the West and nothing at all for those from the East (for their main gun).
For those angles, MG arrangement (other than co-axial, if there is another one that is)probably more important
I thought that Western MBTs could manage -10, while soviet tanks could do -5, so as to keep their silhouette low. Tactically, it means that western MBTs can take hull-down positions that the T-series vehicles could not.
For elevation, it’s simple geometry. For +30 degrees, you the highest thing that you can engage on level ground is half the distance that you are from it. +45 degrees, it’s equal. +60 and it’s twice. How close are you planning to put a vehicle to a tall building?
RWS in general have to be taller than a comparable manned turret because there is no turret ring for the breech to drop into as the gun elevates.
As far as my thought experiment goes, if you were to build a new turret for CVR(T) then it would be the same form as the current one, to save on development cost, just new alloys and construction techniques. Maybe put some new systems into it – Stab gear, smaller sights, comms and electrics – but the intention would be to free up space, weight and power..
If you start building a whole new turret, then you’re at the stage where it becomes cheaper and easier to build new.
The RARDEN is probably the biggest, most powerful gun that you could fit in the turret, so if you could adapt it to fire more powerful ammunition (the 173mm cartridge rather than the 170mm) and access the wide range of ammunition developed for the slightly different case, then you have a jump in capability for minimal physical change.
I rather doubt that CVR(T) is big enough for APS. You need a certain level of protection to soak up the fragments from the destroyed threat. That said, the IBD stuff has been mounted on an IVECO LMV which surely has less protection than a CVR(T).
Hi Mr. fred,
RE “The RARDEN is probably the biggest, most powerful gun that you could fit in the turret, so if you could adapt it to fire more powerful ammunition (the 173mm cartridge rather than the 170mm) and access the wide range of ammunition developed for the slightly different case, then you have a jump in capability for minimal physical change”
– the one in my proposal is the Bushy Mk44 that ” can fire all types of 30mm x 173mm ammunition,[ two kinds, having a dual-feed]
– but can also “be chambered for 30 x 170mm Rarden” if we insist on commonality over a transition period
– and, then, is also “capable of being easily converted to fire Super Forty 40mm ammunition for built-in growth capability”
The current turret ring must be hugely more than a meter in diameter, meaning that sticking the weapon station through that “hole” and lowering it partly, when it is not needed, should be doable
I do like the Mk44, but it is bigger than the RARDEN and crucially needs electrical power to work. If the UOR-style update to CVR(T) has power generation issues, then putting an electrically-driven gun in the turret is not going to help.
You could put a weapon station on the hull, but this is a scout, not a weapon carrier. Hiding the crew in the hull robs them of a wealth of situational awareness that still cannot be filled with electro-optics unless you spend fantastic amounts on them.
Let me play Devil’s Advocate so that we get a truly alternative design, on a truly conventional chassis:
– re: your first point, the gun movement penalty is only 1 bhp, but
– we will have a fair need of electric power to counter your second point (Hiding the crew in the hull robs them of a wealth of situational awareness that still cannot be filled with electro-optics unless you spend fantastic amounts on them.; which I tend to agree with, btw) you can always take “SELEX Galileo’s Road Marshall integrated vehicle situational awareness system for land vehicles. The system uses a combination of electro optics and acoustic sensors to provide 360o coverage around the vehicle. Many of the subsystems integrated into the solution are fully combat proven and in service with UK and other Armed Forces. The Road Marshall system [on display] also features a Long Range Reconnaissance (LRR) sensor capable of detecting and tracking vehicles, personnel and aircraft in both day and night, an acoustic shot detection system and a Remotely-operated Weapon Station (RWS) which can be fitted with a wide range of small and medium calibre armaments. The RWS can be automatically aimed in the direction of any threat identified by the shot detection system and is fitted with the high performance Surveillance and Target Acquisition and Weapon aiming Sensor (STAWS) to provide 24 hour operation.”
Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news/36723/Selex_Galileo_Offers_High_Tech_Situational_Awareness_and_Force_Protection_to_Brunei_Armed_Forces.htm#ixzz1XInDP96b
Shot detection is pretty whizzy, but situational awareness cameras aren’t new, and neither is slew-to-cue. I think that the Conqueror was the first AFV to implement it.
The high magnification sensors do indeed provide better vision than the Mk1 eyeball, but kinaesthetic senses, smell, peripheral and stereoscopic vision cannot be easily conveyed by a computer screen. A direct view optic will convey far higher resolution than a comparable magnification electro-optic.
Mr.fred,
Agree 100% about electrical situational awareness systems, just not as good as the human head- take a look at convoys in Afghanistan, guys with heads poking out all over the place. Also, why FRES-SCOUT is getting a manned turret. Shot detection is whizzy but less than accurate or reliable at this time.
I thought that I would be voted down on that one…
Hanging on, though, about the value of RWSs, especially when you upgrade older IFVs/ APCs with them (a turret would eat up half of the useful space (in lieu of the old arrangement, where one guy stood standing and manning a ring-mounted weapon)
Sounds like the consensus is RWS are not right choice for a scout – can anyone tell me if a CRV(T) mk 2 (if it goes beyond what is already happening) really need a cannon? Would a manned turret with a stabilised .50 cal (and if space allows) and a 40mm GMG under armour be sufficient, if teamed with a really good optical day/night sight? If cannon is needed, do we really need to keep Rarden, could we not use 25mm cannon instead?
Also as a non-expert I find some of the current RWS rather surprising in how much the look like a conventional turret, and how little the look like RWS on ships – such as the DRAGAR turret – which on closer inspection appears to be an enclosed weapon station built without a hatch for the commander/gunner to observe through (is this correct)? Presumably the lack of hatch is why the French added thermal camera to it?
http://www.nurolmakina.com.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235&Itemid=514&lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9hicule_blind%C3%A9_de_combat_d%27infanterie
The reason medium calibre turrets are starting to look like conventional turrets is simple- it is roughly the same design solution just without a hole for the person/people- all the other design drivers are the same, including for as low a profile as possible.
The issue with CVR(T) Mk2 is that its a UOR so the urgent nature rather precludes any sort of major turret redevelopment.
RWS are excellent for upgrading older APC’s, or for turning APC’s into IFV’s but there is a situational awareness loss.
Bob said: “RWS are excellent for upgrading older APC’s, or for turning APC’s into IFV’s but there is a situational awareness loss.”
But is there that much of a loss ?
I have been lucky enough to sit in an old Scorpion with the “hatch battened down” and look through the plethora of vision blocks / periscopes arrayed around the commanders seat. I have also been lucky enough to be allowed to crawl all over the turret of CH2 once – so I totally get the advantage of height, even when the crew has to button up.
But does not a vehicle commanders “cupola” with vision blocks / periscopes, a panoramic camera (on a short mast as part of RWS), the main site optics on the RWS, and front and rear ‘corner’ cameras get us to the point that for your standard AIFV at least, the situational awareness is far and away better than ever before available to buttoned up crews ?
Now, on topic, with a recce vehicle I can see the point of retaining a manned turret, but is the loss of the manned turret the next part of the evolution from APC “battle taxi” to MICV to “Protected Mobility” ???
Jed,
Yes there is that much of a loss. What do you mean protected mobility? In UK terms that is just an APC.
Hi Jed,
I was lost, too. In the family tree (can’t draw here) we have:
at the root APC/SPG
it branches out to recce and MICV specialisms, to both sides
but goes straigth through, to the top of the tree (MBT; leaving the Medium Tank a dead (?)relic and the light tank an amphibious/ mountain specialism, mainly merging back to the recce branch through intermarrying)
A small detail:
– the French turret for CTA has only +45 degrees
– no idea if the one ordered is any better than that
Thanks Bob, that makes sense – out of interest, given that the future is FRES SV, is there any value in mating a RWS like the DRAGAR turret to the Scimitar 2 base hull to make a “mini-tank” to provide highly mobile fire support?
Bob
I was asking if we have evolved the nomenclature so that in British Army parlance at least, Protected Mobility = APC + RWS, as opposed to APC with just a pintle mount MG (without or without gun shields) – just a thought thats all
Ref loss of situational awareness – “Yes” – lovely one their Bob, great answer, really layed out your thoughts on the subject :-)
Would you like to expand on why ?
Jed,
1) The human head has more than just sight, it also has smell, and hearing and can fuse those sensors in a manner that no computer has yet managed. In addition, looking through periscopes tends to focus the eyes and lessen the peripheral. A lot can be done from under armour but the advantage of the human head as a sensor mount and sensor fusion platform can not be understated.
2) We already have those, Bulldogs, Ridgebacks and Mastiffs have all been fitted with the Selex enforcer with an RWS mounting a .50 cal. Conceptually no different to any other APC. Adding a full medium calibre remote turret would push the price up rapidly.
I’ll have a crack at that one Jed;
The first aspect is quality of vision. Direct optics are massively higher “resolution” than a camera, so for a given field of view direct optics are superior, provided visibility is sufficient. Electro-optics improve relative to direct optics as the environment becomes less permissive, such as darkness or smoke.
In addition, direct optics usually mean that you know exactly which way you are looking. There is an instinctive understanding of position in the human body that does not have to be trained in.
With a manned turret, you can also go head out or umbrella mode without affecting the operation of the turret. Use that ability to have a good look around, smell the air, listen to what’s going on, bring peripheral vision into play to keep oriented to the vehicle, use your elevated position to spot for the driver over tricky terrain. All things that a recce vehicle needs.
I think the whole concept of a MICV is past its sell by date, the money, personnel, training time and weight of the turret would be better allocated to protection on the vehicle itself and something beefier to provide fire support.
On the Mark 1 Head v electronics I think the general thinking is still that the Mark 1 head brings something to the role that is worth keeping but immersive technologies will no doubt catch up at some point.
I would say that the idea of a lightweight MICV that is supposed to operate in concert with MBTs, with an order of magnitude more protection, is a a bit past it’s sell by date.
I would say it is all about integration (manouevre, incl. vertical) and in that equation MICVs are one of the cheaper elements – and one of the most numerous
– firepower and accuracy are getting to be phenomenal (unfortunately that might go for the other side, as well)
Think Defence,
The MICV is most certainly not past its sell by date. The idea that replacing one vehicle with two will somehow save any money, personnel or training is just silly, the MICV concept is here to stay because in a single vehicle it offers the ability to both move troops around the battlefield in a protected manner and provide them with fire support either when they are mounted or dismounted. The concept has been developing for years and I concur with Mr.fred re weight, we are thus seeing things like Puma (and Marder 2 stillborn before it), GCV and Namer. Warrior itself was originally meant to be 30 tonnes with Chobham armour, 750hp and hydro suspension. Let us not forget that there was at one point a future IFV programme to replace Warrior- to enter service in 2012 IIRC.
Bob,
Who said anything about replacing one veicle with two?
I see the cost and crew overhead of an MICV turret, the lower portection levels of the vehicles its dismounts are supposed to be supporting and general cost ratio of the vehicle to dismounts etting out of control.
Why does the fire suport for dismounted infantry (I am confused by what you mean when you say fire support for mounted infantry) have to come from the same vehicle
Why does the standard infantry section have to be carried
Perhaps you could quantify those costs? A Puma costs than a Leopard 2 (depending on variant, support package etc) yet offers fantastic protection, mobility and firepower, how do you know cost is getting out of control? What is the upper limit?. By providing fire support from the same vehicle one only needs one vehicle rather than two, a full infantry squad is required for the same reason- it is an infantry carrier as well as fire support vehicle and a single squad is the lowest echelon of command (itself derived over decades as the most effective small fighting unit). Fire support for mounted infantry would be in the form of protection prior to dismount and pre-dismount battlefield preperation. I am honestly astonished that you question the MICV concept, far from being past its sell by date it is a lynch-pin (and becoming more so through combat experience) of mechanised land warfare.
Bob, you need to think critically about things like section and platoon size and this will ultimately drive out vehicle requirements. We seem wedded to the 8 man section which when in an Warrior means 7 plus 1 in the turret. The loss of efficiency when the commander dismounts means that fire support is impacted, perhaps a 10 man section or 30 man platoon makes more sense. Maybe the USMC model with a 13 man squad organised into 2x 6 man fire teams. These larger sub units are more resistant to casualties and can bring greater suport fires or distribute the link and fire support/equipment load i.e batteries!
We need to consider the impact of individual soldier communication equipment, fire support, personal loads and levels of technical sophistication for example.
There are plenty of alternative ways of looking at organising the infantry and just because its the way we have always done it doesn’t make it right.
These then drive vehicle design.
With a larger section/fire team you can have fewer vehicles, use armoured corps personnel as drivers and gunners instead of infantry personnel and provide fire support with combinations dedicated fire support vehicle/s that can leverage both direct and indirect fires as an example.
If we think that the future is fighting in urban areas look at the nation with more experience of that than anyone, have they ever gone down the MICV route
Section size is a moot point really. Platoons can break themselves down however they want. Sections are just an administrative nicety. It’s the Platoon that fights.
I would argue, Bob, that Namer isn’t an MICV but a very heavy, heavily armoured APC. It’s armament is restricted to a .50 browning or 40mm GMG.
Hi Pete,
That ” It’s armament is restricted to a .50 browning or 40mm GMG” came about after carefully weighing factors like fire power (it is not fighting alone)against sustainability in combat (in an urban environment it is the ammo you run out of first, rather than fuel).
You can imagine the difference in volume vs. even the lightest autocannon. A compensating factor is the innovative fire-on-the move solution that goes beyond gun stabilisation, so the already much higher ammunition load is not wasted in saturation mode
Think Defence,
With all due respect the Army retains a continual debate of the optimum size for fighting formations. This is not a number that they pull out of thin are but rather one that has evolved out of decade after decade of combat experience.This is a subject that is thought about critically. And sections are most definitely NOT just an administrative nicety. One of the requirements of the GCV programme is to provide a vehicle that can carry a full 9 man (as used by the US Army) infantry squad rather than the current situation where 3 9 man teams have to be split over 4 Bradleys.
Warrior has never been a perfect vehicle and WCSP will only go some way to dealing with its issues but that does not undermine the MICV concept itself.
Namer is certainly an APC, but alongside GCV and Puma as well as the expectation (during its brief existence) that FIFV would be approximately 40 tonnes it tells us where protection is going.
“And sections are most definitely NOT just an administrative nicety”
Yes they are. The Platoon fights, it is the platoon that is tasked, that platoon can break itself down into whatever the Platoon Commander wishes to break it down into. If he wants he can have four man bricks, two multiples, three sections, two sections and an FSG, whatever he wants.
It is wrong to think of a vehicle carrying a semi independent section – instead a platoon is carried in 4 vehicles. The platoon is the weapon system as it were, the unit of employment.
It is a convenient default setting and helpful peacetime administrative convenience and organisation and planning tool but section organisation within the platoon is not set in stone. The platoon is far more flexible than that.
The yanks do it differently. There is no need to have 1 section in one vehicle, 2 section in another, 3 section in another and HQ – they can be loaded on the vehicles however the Platoon Commander wants.
It seems the driver is to fit a platoon into 4 vehicles. Not a section into 1. That might sound pedantic but you’re saying section size drives the vehicle design when I don’t think it does, if it did Warrior would have 8 dismounts in the back and not the 7+1 it has now. Instead x number of vehicles has to fit y number of men and one MICV slice of men is just called a section with a small “s” not a section with a capital “S” as it were.
Phil,
You are just wrong on this, no other way of putting it, Sections have been specifically designed as singular fighting units carrying a carefully considered range of equipment that forms an overall fighting package. There is every driver to put a complete section in a single vehicle (which is why a Warrior is also called a section vehicle and why the US wants to create something similar- section size does drive vehicle design). There are periodic temporary modifications to the structure, the same way there is to brigades and platoons etc, but the section as the lowest unit of command is a key fighting unit which in an MICV context is intended to operate in concert with its vehicle.
“You are just wrong on this, no other way of putting it, Sections have been specifically designed as singular fighting units carrying a carefully considered range of equipment that forms an overall fighting package. ”
Your confident you are right. Tell me on what this confidence is based? My knowledge of infantry sections and platoons comes from operating with them. Like I said, they are a useful tool for planning and doctrine purposes but the Platoon itself is the fighting unit.
The section attack is simply a training tool, the section itself a useful default setting. Platoons are task organised all the time, on a daily or hourly basis. It’s the same in the US Army, the Platoon itself is split over the BFVs, there is not one defined section in each one. The same with Warrior. Unless the PC wants the vehicles loaded out that way.
Sections are planning tools. The Platoon Commander has complete say in how his unit is organised to fight and operate. 4 vehicles per platoon, not one vehicle per section.
I am afraid that is just not the case, the whole purpose of a true MICV is it produces a fighting package that takes a squad and combines it with a vehicle that can both transport and provide fire support. The Bundeswehr panzer-grenadier concept that started it is the same- a 9 man squad deployed in one vehicle with six men acting as dismounts (still manifesting itself today in the Puma). Units of all sizes are adapted under various conditions but all have a default setting and infantry section is a specific unit of command that has evolved over decades of experience. As I have already pointed out the inability of the Bradley to carry a full section is one of the key issues that the GCV programme seeks to address by placing a full 9 man section in the IFV. The EFV programme was intended to carry a full Marine rifle squad.
Bob,
I think I would be inclined to defer to Phil on this, given the operational experience. But this is something that I e-mailed TD about a while back, based on obersvations of film collected by front line soldiers (along with their personal accounts) which appears to show the Platoon as the primary fighting unit, with men and weapon systems being detached off and shifted about in an ad hoc basis.
You are correct Chris. The Platoon is the fighting unit. The sections are just convenience. In real life the PC decides who he needs to get what job done and who will command those men. The section is not sacrosant, it is an organisation of men used at the PC discretion and it is very rarely used as such because (a) platoons are very rarely at their authorised strength and (b) he will organise his unit as he sees fit for the mission(s) at hand. As I have said Bob, the section is a unit of convenience it is not an operational grouping unless the PC decides it is for convenience.
And Bob, click this link and have a gander.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-7j/figA-2.gif
Like I said, 4 vehicles to a Platoon. It’s a US Army source but the same for the British Army.
You didn’t tell me where your extreme level of confidence that I am wrong derives from?
I managed to dig up the e-mail I sent. The relevant section (ba doom tish) was as follows;
“Platoons. Officially the strength of a British Army Platoon is 24 men, plus 3 corporals, a sergeant and a lieutenant or second lieutenant. I noticed that including officers and sergeants… …in fact only had a max strength available of 19.
Now given the doctrine of the army, the section is supposed to be the smallest unit, with the fire team occasionally considered as such. But I noticed that in fact… …the smallest fighting unit of the British Army appears, at least under the rigours and reality of combat, to be the Platoon.”
If you want the full e-mail Phil let TD know and I can probably forward it through to you, without you having to splash your e-mail all over the interwebs.
Bob, would tend to agree that sections are pretty much administrative groupings and in the field tend to get mixed and matched to suit but all I am saying on that is that things evolve and whilst the section might have once been the basic building block that made sense the world changes around that notion.
Any number of factors
Attrition rates
Attitude to casualties and keeping fighting
Medical advances
Weights and measures of equipment
Relationship with support weapons and indirect weapons
The nature of the enemy
Just because something has always been done that way does not mean it should be seen as sacrosanct
There is a lot of interesting stuff about in terms of going for larger sub units and having unevenly sized sub units with greater emphasis on support weapons to make breaking contact quicker, as just one example
I am afraid I don’t have blind faith in any professional institution, which is why this places exists. A place to discuss, not just accept the status quo
Debates on section organisation are largely moot because pound to a pinch of shit they won’t be used in that organisation. As I said, the PC has complete control over how his Platoon is organised and how he wants to fight it. The three equal sections organisation can be useful, the classic two up, one back and bags of smoke but for example, a fighting patrol will be stronger than section strength and so that fighting patrol will be tasked organised. Perhaps as I said the PC want two manoeuvre units and an FSG based around a GPMG or two. And as Chris B points out the section organisation is destroyed in most Platoons immediately because they are very, very rarelyat full strength.
The mission determines the organisation, the organisation does not determine the mission. And as I said, these re-organisations can be an hourly thing since all you need to do is tell Private X he is with Cpl Y for this one. Platoons, to go all Birtspeak, are almost infinitely modular and fluid.
And just as a section is a convenient grouping for administration and as a default setting so it is convenient for a number of reasons to have an MICV capable of carrying a section. But that does not mean that the section organisation is even slightly adhered to on a day to day basis on operations.
4 MICVs have x number of seats and the PC fills them however he pleases.
I think I am never inclined to defer to people on the internet, irrelevant of their claimed experience. The squad is the lowest echelon of command and is not just an administrative unit. Its optimal size is a never-ending internal debate on both sides of the Atlantic with different forces coming to different conclusions. Nobody is excepting the status quo as the subject is an ongoing discourse. As evidence I point you to the fact that the structure of a British Army squad has changed considerably since WW2 as new weapons have been introduced. The purpose of the MICV concept is to mechanise that squad concept and provide it with its own heavy fire support and that is why IFV’s are built to carry a squad (See Warrior, Puma, GCV, EFV).
Flexibility in force structure applies at every level so I am slightly confused as to why this is being thought of as such a big issue. And the debate is certainly not moot, it is anything but. And secondly people here seem to not understand the MICV concept- it is not simply a carrier vehicle but is intended to fight with the infantry as a coherent unit.
Bob, I don’t think anyone misunderstand the concept of what MICV means or does, are you mistaking questioning it for ignorance perhaps?
RE ” The purpose of the MICV concept is to mechanise that squad concept and provide it with its own heavy fire support and that is why IFV’s are built to carry a squad (See Warrior, Puma, GCV, EFV)”
– even though I agree in the main, this is a circular argument
– heavy fire support, before the era of IFVs, was mainly held at company level (so we do we go with this platoon – section/ squad tug-of-war?)
– German infantry squads, unlike others, were built around machine guns, to protect them; today MG is not considered fire support, but the squad and the vehicle+gun are still”one” in the good old PzJaeger tradition. so counting mounted and dismounted numbers separately does not even occur to anybody (there)
– what does the EFV bring into this argument? USMC always had to consider the basic unit having to survive, isolated,for longer and hence it became bigger than the “norm” – so what do we get when that is translated into an IFV… a big white elephant, that is not survivable, because it has been designed around an infantry concept (a battle field taxi concept worked, but the next step up did not)
No one asked you to defer to me. I know full well what I know. And I know that the PC fights his platoon how he wants depending on the mission and what he perceives is needed to fulfil it. Nobody is stating that sections do not exist. What I am stating is that they are rarely if ever used as per their peacetime makeup. More often than not they are built up or down. Designing a vehicle around a section of a particular make up isn’t smart. Or credible. The PC fills those seats how he wants to. You have seen black and White evidence that the US BFVs do not sit a defined squad. Instead 4 vehicles carry a platoon.
The section in the British Army is for practical purposes rarely used. And rarely equipped as such.
Bang on about semantics and doctrine all you want. I know, for a fact, how it works in practise. In exercise and operational terms.
Sorry, had a typo in a bad place:
“so wHeRE do we go with this platoon – section/ squad tug-of-war?” it was meant to say
“By providing fire support from the same vehicle one only needs one vehicle rather than two, a full infantry squad is required for the same reason- it is an infantry carrier as well as fire support vehicle and a single squad is the lowest echelon of command ”
It’s an issue here because you said that, and it is wrong. A full infantry section carrying capability is not a driver since a section will not be working independently. A specific grouping of men to accomplish a task might be working independently, but it will rarely be a “section”. It will be whatever the PC needs to accomplish that mission and what he can fit in the necessary number of vehicles.
“so wHeRE do we go with this platoon – section/ squad tug-of-war?”
In the British Army you provide a nominal group of 30-40 men commanded by an Officer and supported by a Sgt and you provide 3 Corporals who are able to take command of groupings of men to accomplish different tasks. As a peacetime and administrative and doctrine aid those men are divided equally under the 3 Corporals but this will very rarely be how the Platoon fights.
The PC decides that and there is no point trying to micro-manage a Platoon organisation that will be called upon to do a great variety of tasks.
The PC is paid to know what he wants to do and how he wants to do it.
During the last decade the section in the British Army has become less and less important as an operational grouping, if it ever was important as an operational grouping.
So whats the thinking of vehicles that can carry more than a section, 10 or 12 dismounts for example. Avoiding whether they should provide organic fire support or not would a larger vehicle enable a smaller vehicle count and reduce the driver headcount?
“The purpose of the MICV concept is to mechanise that squad concept and provide it with its own heavy fire support and that is why IFV’s are built to carry a squad”
The BFV wasn’t. I’ve shown you the evidence. You ignored it.
I take all of this at face value
“The PC is paid to know what he wants to do and how he wants to do it.
During the last decade the section in the British Army has become less and less important as an operational grouping, if it ever was important as an operational grouping.”
There are other armies that build in more resilience (should the one guy paid to think become KIA) and also prepare to fight in a much more dispersed way (lethality of modern battle field, precision fires and all that…)
– but now we are talking infantry in general, not just IFV designs to enable and empower certain parts of infantry to do more than they otherwise could
“There are other armies that build in more resilience (should the one guy paid to think become KIA) and also prepare to fight in a much more dispersed way (lethality of modern battle field, precision fires and all that…)”
There’s a lot of talk of subordinates having the same skill set as their superior one level up. In practise it is much harder to accomplish since fighting a Platoon takes experience and specialised training.
But should the PC be killed then the Sgt should be more than capable of taking over. The PC is going to loose a lot of control once the fighting starts anyway and the battle devolves to the fire team / battle pair level.
In a general battle like say Mount Longdon in 1982, you aim your Platoon in the right direction, you tell it how far it is to go and then that’s it, you can’t expect much more control until the job is done especially at night – the battle devolves to the Corporals or more likely, mates covering mates. You just kill whatever is in front of you and periodically try and re-organise to resume the attack if you can.
In a general battle think of the Platoon as a shot gun, you move it to where it is needed and then let it off. You cobble what’s left of it together and let it off again and again until it wins or is defeated. Section organisation breaks right down in that scenario. And it breaks down in other types of operations because sections rarely operate independently and if they do it is not 3 Section or 2 Section, it is x number of men under Cpl Y and Z number of men under L/Cpl V.
That’s the heart of the matter, I think
“because sections rarely operate independently ”
– neither do you send an individual IFV (with a section in it) to accomplish a goal (other than blocking a road junction, or such like)
Phil, do you know what the current experience in Afghanistan is with regards vehicles like Mastiff and Bronco, or indeed Warrior
Was thinking in terms of numbers of dismounts
How crewing with tankies has changed their employment
Do they provide fire support or just deliver dismounts to a forum up point and retire
Interesting debate.
4 vehicles per platoon is based on one per section and a vehicle for the platoon commander. Each vehicle needs to have a coherent tactical command unit in it because when you debuss in contact the disorientation is immense. Phil’s shotgun analogy is spot on; so we avoid where possible splitting a tac element between vehicles and do not normally organise ourselves in that manner.
Platoons are task organised as required, but the section is both an administrative and a tactical grouping and commanders try and maintain platoon, section and then fireteam integrity. Platoons operate as platoons, sections and multiples (half-platoons). Many PBs and checkpoints in Helmand are manned by sections and 5SCOTS (H13) described it as a ‘section commander’s war’.
My experience is as a mechanised and armoured infantry commander. Every section had a vehicle that it was clearly responsible for (vehicle maint is bigger then just the driver).
Now many units do things differently and in Afghanistan where the vehicles are very often pooled for a variety of reasons there will not be the degree of ownership that I have described.
And keep challenging the status quo. We do good things for the wrong reasons, bad things for the right things and very often stupid things because we just have not thought about things!
My experience working with armoured corps soldiers providing the lift element is that it took some time for them to read the ground in the same way that the infantry did, and to understand the ground and infantry tactics to the point that they could intuitively put the infantry where they needed to be and support them as required. It is just a matter of different skillsets. If you are used to driving a CR2 around the place you use the ground differently then if you are weasling around in a Warrior and have a pedigree of crawling up stream beds and ditches…
I have not seen what they do in Afghanistan, but I suspect that much will depend on role – are the RAC (tankies) providing a Protected Mobility (PM)capability or a integral manoeuvre capability? PM is just that – an armoured taxi service. What is critical is the Command and Control. There can only be one tactical commander; is that the tankie subaltern in charge of the packet or the infantry subaltern riding in the back with his boys?
“Platoons are task organised as required, but the section is both an administrative and a tactical grouping and commanders try and maintain platoon, section and then fireteam integrity.”
I really think that is down to the strength and personality of the PC. I know some consider it an aspiration to keep sections together, but others were not fussed at all and neither were the blokes in the Platoon.
And in my experience the permanent CPs were manned around section, multiple strength not wishing to give away exact numbers or general ideas.
My point, and I think Callum is backing this up, is that the section is not set in stone, it varies for a lot of reasons. Especially in Afghanistan where there are a variety of roles and different laydowns depending on the AO and the OC’s. I won’t go into exact numbers on the internet but the various bases were manned at a variety of different levels. The thing in Afghan is getting the right balance between relatively static bases (CPs, OPs) and having a force able to operate in depth against the insurgent, one or the other is not enough.
I know some commanders that wouldn’t lose any sleep over the sections being mixed up and Dave who is normally 6 section is, today for this task, with 5 section because John fell off a Warrior yesterday and has done his ankle in, and Rob has to come over for this task too as someone has put Smudge on stag.
And so on.
So in summary, I really think it depends on the personality. And in my experience the majority of the work in Afghan is not done using 8 man sections, its multiples and platoons or variations of them.
On the subject of MICVs, personnel carriers in general, and the section size, I would make the following observations, as a food for thought:
While it may never be the same seven or eight guys who get in the back of a vehicle, the group that gets out must be a cohesive unit. The US Bradley platoon did not have this, instead (officially) splitting squad members between vehicles. This meant that if they wanted to operate as a number of squads, they had to dismount, re-organise and then attack. In reality, what undoubtedly would have happen would have been that the dismount squad would have been that which got out the back out of each vehicle, thus making the Bradley platoon a sub-unit of four six or seven men squads. This is presumably why the US is moving towards a 9 man dismount section for GCV.
The US Stryker organisation is a better arrangement. Each vehicle carries more than the 9-man squad, but each vehicle fits an entire 9-man squad plus room for attached assets like GPMG teams. By contrast, most 4-vehicle platoons use the platoon command vehicle as the carrier for attached teams. this has the advantage of keeping the platoon support with the platoon commander, but has the down-side that the platoon is not balanced – it can’t operate as two multiples evenly.
Now the number of guys in the back of the vehicle might not be the amount that it can carry. The nominal strength of any unit will be limited by the lift of the vehicles assigned to it, so your platoon can only have number of vehicles times amount of space in each as the maximum operational number of dismounts. In reality, it will always be less than this as there will be a left-out-of-battle contingents (which is NEVER accounted for in designing section size) before you start counting wounded or detached personnel.
While the arms plot was in operation in the British army, the dismount section needed to be standard infantry size so any infantry battalion could be mounted in MICVs. Oddly, to me, this doesn’t account for the crew. When transitioning from Mech Inf it makes sense because the total section size (including crew) in both is ten, but when light infantry is involved their section size is two short. By contrast, the German methodology has been to keep armoured infantry separate and elite. The Panzergrenadiers are part of the armoured formation and fight in concert with the vehicles. Increasingly, their IFV is more heavily armoured than those of other nations as they are presumably expected to fight with the tanks.
With modern weapons and equipment, it is possible to make the case that IFVs and their dismounts should be an integrated armoured corps formation. Their role that of escorting the MBTs as a permanent battlegroup, able to call targets for each other and well versed in the strengths and weaknesses of their counterparts.
Infantry should be bussed about in APCs and maybe some SPGs in support, following on behind the armoured battlegroup spearhead to provide mopping up and flank protection. Relatively light weapons up to 40mm GMG and .50cal, when mounted on RWS or something with computerised fire control, change from being defensive weapons only to being offensive fire-support weapons against all but heavily armed opposition, as the use of Warthog in Afghanistan has shown, and that with manually served weapons.
Phil,
The BFV is not an example of your flawed point at all. The Bradley originally carried a single 6 man squad, it was only in 1990 that this was changed to the current configuration. Neither was ever considered satisfactory which is why one of the key GCV requirements is that it carries a full 9 man squad (something which you keep ignoring). I have not ignored the BFV point, in fact I have answered it multiple times and now I have answered it again with more detail. Callum Lane also well explained the point:
“Each vehicle needs to have a coherent tactical command unit in it because when you debuss in contact the disorientation is immense”
UK squads, like all UK units, are highly flexible, usually due to the habit of chronic undermanning but also due to the general theme of command flexibility that permeates the entire British Army culture. However, it should be noted that Mastiff has a dismount carriage of 8, and as Phil points out most squads in Afghanistan are 8 man. And not by coincidence the standard British Army squad (as carried by the Warrior Section vehicle) is 8.
M.Fred,
Most MICV’s are intended to operate with tanks, there is no particular reason why German IFV’s are heavier (some will claim that the Germans had a higher weight tolerance because they were already at the front line), that is just the way it has worked out. As I said earlier Warrior was originally intended to be 30 tonnes (with Chobham, hydro suspension and a 750hp engine) whilst the GCV programme looks set to produce a vehicle that takes IFV weight to new heights. The Bradley M2 is now up to 36 tons when fully laden and the Warrior TES(H) is said to be about 40 tonnes at max (I dread to think what the acceleration is now- though there is talk that there has been engine modifications, Rolls Royce managed to tweak 800hp out of a CV8 in 1974 before it destroyed itself).
It proves my point about designing a vehicle to fit a specific loudout since that loudout changed. And I never pointed out that sections were eight men in Afghan. You see everything but the eight man section unless that is the force required for the job. Yes it’s a section commanders war but he isn’t commanding a paper organised section. It’s just that a Cpl is the perfect commander for a CP.
And as has been pointed out and as you say yourself its the coherence of the dismounts and not the organisation of them that matters and they’ll nearly always be operating in the context of a platoon or multiple sized operation.
My point is not flawed. It’s based on how things work in practice. You’re so convinced you’re right I might believe you if I did not have experience that shows me you’re wrong on this.
So BFV does prove my point because the loudout changed and wagon loud outs are more about coherent dismounting units than they are about a particular organisation. So there is no point in designing a vehicle around that organisation because in practice it simply does not exist and is anyway subject to change. 4 vehicles per platoon mucker.
Phil,
I seem to have lost the plot on this one.
If there is no point designing a vehicle to a particular loadout, what do you design it to?
If you knew anything about the development of the Bradley you would know it does not prove your point at all. The limited number of dismounts carried was a product of the tortured development and conception process and was in essence an error of judgement- one that is now accepted and being corrected through the GCV programme (9 dismounts that you still keep ignoring). BFV does not prove your point no matter how much you try and twist the logic.
As others here have pointed out what leaves the vehicle needs to be a coherent fighting unit, the best way to achieve that is to carry a full squad which is what IFV’s are designed to carry (once again, Warrior Section Vehicle, Marder, Puma, GCV, EFV). As has already been explained to you (and you ignored it). And as has also been explained to you: 4 vehicles = 3 sections + 1 command section, mucker.
And please, stop trying to allude to “experience” this is an internet discussion, for all you know I could be Elvis.
What I mean is that the vehicle shouldn’t be designed around a doctrinal concept of what a section should be because that concept changes and sections don’t work alone in that context. Obviously 8 to 10 dismounts seems about the right balance between a useful dismount force and vehicle considerations. But Bob said that a vehicle should be designed around a section when it doesn’t really matter as long as the dismount team is cohesive.
And yes Bob I could be Elvis. But perhaps your JFK because you never tell anyone how you know anything. I picked this discussion deliberately because I know how infantry operate in practice on operations and you sound very convincing. And you are forceful in your argument. But I know you’re out of the loop. But you’re not acting like it. So JFK this is Elvis asking you to reference some of your assertions. Because you’re as reliable as me on this one.
And my point wasn’t about BFV it was about what you stated about sections many posts ago. I just used BFV as part of my argument because I had solid evidence to show that the US Army thinks about Platoons and not squads in that context.
Phil,
You don’t have any solid evidence, the US Army thinks about section which is why the GCV programme will produce a vehicle that carries just that-a full 9 man section (the previous XM1206 was to have carried the same), a fact that I notice you are STILL ignoring. BFV proves none of your silly points at all, Bradley platoons are unique in having split sections because of poor procurement decisions, poor decisions that are now being corrected. For instance, Warrior platoons have 4 vehicles, 3 section vehicles and a command vehicle. IFV’s carry a section for the reasons that I and others have pointed out. Sections represent the lowest echelon of command and function as units of command within a platoon- that is the whole point. The reason the dismount team is cohesive is because it is a section- a cohesive echelon of command within the platoon structure.
Once again, stop your silly little allusions to experience, it is just pathetic, especially as you have yet to provide any actual evidence to support your odd arguments and you are wrong.
If one would allow me to interlude
I know for definite Phil has lots of current experience, is that good enough Bob?
Tell you what Bob, as you know, the TD front door is always open and obviously you have lots of knowledge, why don’t you write an article for us or would your personal circumstances not permit?
out of order bob, out of order (paul g, british army 1983-2005 just in case you want to question my experience)
The Bradley was built for seven (6+1 alongside the turret, IIRC), but since the US Army squad is nine, they had them split out all over the place, using the platoon commander’s vehicle to pack the left-overs in. The idea was that the whole platoon drove at the objective, dismounted, re-organised into three 9-man squads and then continued.
I suspect that, as no plan survives contact with reality, much less the enemy, what would really happen if fully manned, is that the platoon would dismount and proceed as 4 seven-ish man squads, one of which contains the platoon HQ. If short, then it is likely that the three squads would revert to having their own vehicles, giving three seven man squads and the HQ.
As such, it would seem sensible to design your personnel carrier based on your section size or even section-size plus some.
Mr.Fred,
Re, Bradley, not quite the case, up until 1990 the Bradley units used 3 small squads with a command squad/vehicle. However, it was then decided that the standard US Army 9 man squad was more appropriate so they were split out across multiple vehicles. This situation is not satisfactory either which is why the IFV planned under FCS and now GCV have a requirement for 9 dismounts. Ironically the inability of the Bradley to carry a full section (which the M113 could/can, in fact it can carry eleven and did until 1983 when M113 squads fell to 9 men), was a criticism of the vehicle even before it entered service. This unfortunate design feature was a product of the fact that the Bradley IFV evolved out of what was originally an APC design onto which a turret was added. For an amusing if not entirely accurate overview I would recommend watching the Pentagon Wars. In general IFV’s and APC’s are designed to carry a full section, the Bradley is an unfortunate exception to this rule that the US Army is still trying to correct.
TD,
Thank you for your kind offer, unfortunately, for at least the medium term I do not have the time available to commit to an article that provide the level of quality that I feel your excellent blog deserves. However if the offer remains open I may be in a position to to perhaps work on something in a few months.
‘ere you go then solves all the problems even room for the chef!! the 10×10 holds a full philamonic orchestra (allegedly)!!!
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gpv/
http://www.armyrecognition.com/Amerique_du_nord/Etats_Unis/vehicules_a_roues/GPV/GPV_10x10x10_General/GPV_General_10x10x10_description_pictures_United_States.htm
Talking about articles (sorry that I can’t offer to write), the two topics I find fascinating when we are looking 5-10 years into the future of British armoured formations:
– are we going to have Chally2’s and some ASCOD derivative, both with the same gun?
– what will step into the Braveheart shoes; surely an evolution in many steps
By that time all FRES SV’s will have been fielded (and some versions binned)and UV in full production (in what ever disguise)
And if MRBs actually are stood up, how big will the armoured component become, relative to the overall strength
Paul,
The GPV has now been licensed to a Turkish company called FNSS and is known as the Pars, it has just been sold to Malaysia in 8×8 form.
ArmChairCivvy,
Chally OSD is 2035, as is Warrior, Braveheart is 2020-2030 and all three have planned but not yet undertaken CSP’s so nobody is realistically thinking of replacement at the moment. FRES-UV has an ISD of 2022, which means that it is 2 spending reviews away (3 at a nudge) and outside of “Force 2020”, In essence it is about as alive Nimrod MRA4 for the time being.
Bob calling me silly and pathetic doesn’t change the fact I know what I saw and experienced. It doesn’t bother me a jot whether or not you believe I have the experience stated. And I only mention it to see if you changed tact but instead you still talk as if your utterly convinced your right. But I know you’re not. You bring no sources to the discussion yet you talk with utter conviction. I assumed at the start if this thread on FRES that you were particularly knowledgeable on the subject as you talked with such conviction. But I think now that conviction just tries to mask a lack of sources or a reluctance to back up assertions with evidence.
I set out to find if you were a reliable source and I don’t think you are.
And using words like silly and pathetic is water off a ducks back. I think you talk the talk but there’s no substance there. No special insight. Several people assumed you must have been on the inside of FRES but I doubt that now.
Let’s hope your imaginary independent section never materialises.
Thanks Bob, I was coming at it from the angle of what will emerge (of course the fleets themselves have working lives comparable to ours).
Without that knowledge/ understanding/ vision I can see a brigade emerging where the different units bundled together are too disparate as for protection, mobility and firepower and the armoured element too small to give the field commander the means to compensate for that through manoeuvre.
Phil,
Somewhat hypocritical as your only “source” is yourself also. Also, you are being misleading, I never said anything about an independent section, I do not know if you are being deliberately dishonest or just failed to read what I wrote but I will repeat it for you:
“Sections represent the lowest echelon of command and function as units of command within a platoon- that is the whole point. The reason the dismount team is cohesive is because it is a section- a cohesive echelon of command within the platoon structure.”
Does that sound independent to you?
It is hypocritical of me in this instance. But I had an agenda. I wanted to test the legitimacy of a source. And I find that source replies with as much conviction about things I know he is wrong about as about things I dont know if he knows about. You don’t use sourcs and you haven’t revealed even a hint of your background which might give you some legitimacy and excuse the lack of sources. You can’t have your cake and eat it Bob. You either know something we don’t in which case explain how or add a sprinkling of references. You might be in the infantry directorate, you might be pulling strings in writing the specs for FRES but I don’t know that. Anymore than you know I was in Afghan. if you’re going to be brusque and haughty back it up mucker.
ArmChairCivvy,
The question that really sticks out 9and i think what you were alluding to) is how the UV problem will be solved. If it is Bulldog then it is hilarious, FV432 evolved out of a series of failed carrier vehicles in the 50s and entered production in 1962, service in 1963 and the last rolled of the Sankey production line in 1971. It was stated in Parliament that it would need replacement in the mid-80s, if it lasts to FRES-UV’s current ISD it will have been in service for 60 years. If it is to be Ridgeback/Mastiff, then it is going to be expensive (the vehicles currently exist in at least 4 generations so will need standardising and need overhaul) and there will be a mobility cost. Brings me back to the complete failure of UK armoured vehicles policy over the last 20 years.
Phil,
Unfortunately I am not wrong, IFV’s are designed in one way or another around section, those sections are arranged in platoons and so on. This means that the vehicles themselves, and I have given multiple examples, are designed to carry a complete section. We have more than been over the Bradley example that you so little understood so it would be preferable if I was not forced to explain it again.
You don’t have to explain again. Although what you seek to explain is subtly off my argument. You stated that sections were the lowest echelon of command and I argued that sections never conform to the book organisation and never operate independently but instead exist within the context of the platoon which is the fighting unit and which can be task organised as is seen fit. It therefore makes no sense to design a vehicle around a Section but rather it is better to do so around a section, ie simply a slice of the Platoons fighting power. You said that I was ‘utterly’ wrong on how sections and platoons operated. I know I’m not because I didn’t dream my experiences. I’m sure there are director infantry reports backing me up and tactical laydown documents but they aren’t public domain. But if you like analyse say Goose Green or a contemporary account of Op Banner or analyse an engagement by 1 Div in ’91. You said I was wrong about Platoons.
BOB
At a tangent Extreme age in weapons is not new.
e.g
Dakota flew for 50 years in armies like south africa.
C130 if it follows a similar pattern will be in service with 1st and 2nd rank forces (Real propper ones like Europe and USA) 100 years after the first one left the production line!
Liberty tank engine in WW2 (not our finest engineering hour it has to be admittted) was 1918 aircraft engine.
And last and formost the Colt 1911 45 pistol is 100 years old this year and remain in service with the US with ‘Them’ and marines, and there are serious moves to bring it back for the whole army!
BTW
The TA officers I know, both of which have done tours of Iraq and Afgahn and which’s units were warrior qualified (although now no longer due to budget cuts), both say phil is right and you’re talking out of your apc’s exhaust pipe.
IXION,
What a useless and failed attempt at point scoring. Most of your examples make no sense as they were/are systems that were in production for decades, FV432 was in production for only a decade.
Phil,
You said that four vehicles are built to carry a platoon and that IFV’s are not designed to carry a section. You were wrong on that and I have given you multiple examples, IFV’s are designed to carry a complete section (Bradley being the unfortunate exception to the rule). To get around this you have attempted to twist logic, put words in my mouth and change the debate. But the simple fact is that IFV’s are designed to take a complete section, see Warrior, EFV, GCV, Puma etc.
@bob, don’t forget BAe are a partner in the FNSS pars contract. (pars is where i first came acros this vehicle, but i used the gpv page as it had better schematics.
I think that both are right to a degree.
The dismount section will always be the number you can fit in the vehicle as splitting Sections across vehicles does not work. Your vehicles define the maximum number in the dismount section and therefore limits your organisation, whether official or spur-of-the-moment.
Your nominal platoon strength depends on your lift capacity of four vehicles.
Your dismount section depends on the lift capacity of a single vehicle, regardless of whether that section is official or improvised. It also determines your multiple
Anyone know when CVR(T) Mk2 myths and reality can be separated (“launch” at the exhibition)?
Well, DSEI is Tuesday to Friday this week. I guess we’ll find out then. Janes and DefenseNews often do show reports.
Bob, stop being so abrasive please. It diminishes your arguments.
Mr.Fred,
And that is why MICV’s are built to carry a section, hence Warrior section vehicle and all the other examples I provided. Vehicles are not designed in a vacuum but rather as part of a holistic approach to force structure- which is why their are so many Warrior variants.
Paul g,
Indeed, as I understand it FNSS is a JV between BAE and Nurol Holding. The Malaysian Pars will be something of a multinational affair, at least some seem earmarked for Denel turrets and Thales Sapura Electronics (a JV between Thales and Sapura Holdings) is going to be systems integrator.
Bob
Milliary Dakotas only in production for about 4 years actually…
If I may quote one of my favorite films
“What is your major malfunction”?
Why are you so agressive with everyone?
It mean really why?
ACC, I think the main questions for me are
Why, what are the underlying reasons (protection, space for equipment, fatigue in Scimitar hulls)
Are they new build or mixing and matching from the spares bin
How many
Roles
UOR or main equipment plan, what after afghanistan
Bob I’m sure you toil under the great burden of bringing wisdom to the ignorant masses and that these debates are a labour of love for you but that is not what I said. I said that sections were an administrative nicety and that they are rarely used or able to be used as per their paper organisations in practice and it therefore makes no sense to design a vehicle around that paper organisation. It’s a very subtle point, bordering on pedantry but like I said I had an agenda. Platoons are the main fighting element of an infantry company. The OC won’t order a section to operate on it’s own because it is simply a slice of a Platoon and doesn’t have the ability to fight anything but a two man position if we use the 3:1 ratio. But sections won’t come across that because nobody sticks too blokes out on their own. They’ll be part of an integrated defensive position just like the section is part of an integrated attack and the Platoon will be task organised. 3 manoeuvre elements and a HQ are a time tested division but there is nothing stopping the PC modifying that organisation. I’ve stuck to this argument from post 1 and used the BFV as an example. You still talk like you’re privy to some information we’re not. You talk in a rigorous manner but there’s no substance to much of what you say in relation to my point I made above.
IXION,
Please look up the definition of the word ‘most’.
Phil,
Still unclear. If we do not use the paper organisation to design a troop carrier, what do we use?
A good question (without wanting to get in-between Bob & Phil; they are having a lovely time!)
” If we do not use the paper organisation to design a troop carrier, what do we use?”
– the army tradition was to rotate infantry between roles. Squad size was set by tradition; like in many armies (8 is the average?).
– post-mortem of the deployment(planning) for GW1 showed that 19(!) bn’s were out of the equation as they were in the middle of re-roling/ training for it
– I don’t think that e.g the Germans worry about squad size between Panzergrenadier units and other types of infantry being different?
– re-roling/rotation between roles has had a hard look since in the British army, I believe, but the famous flexibility as a tradition has pre-empted any need to touch nominal sizes of various command echelons
Now…I might be totally wrong, just a thought?
Phil,
1) Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said a section functions on its own. This is an example of you deliberately twisting the discussion.
2) I have already pointed out that the BFV example does nothing to prove your point- so for the nth time, look at the GCV programme and the history of the Bradley that has already been explained to you. I have provided you with multiple problems and pointed out why Bradley does not support your argument.
Bob
Total production time for DC3 and all its varients 1939 (late) to 1945 (early) 5 years at best,vast majority 1942-1944.
Like I said What is it with you?
Mate I said sections don’t operate on their own. I said they operate as part of a platoon effort. You implicitly state that they operate independently by stating that there is a need for each wagon to hold one Section. They hold one slice of platoon combat power, a section with a small ‘s’. I do also believe that at the time of Warriors conception the Br infantry section was ten men at war establishment.
Mr Fred. What I mean is that the vehicle should carry a useful number of dismounts in a usefully coherent group. The Br infantry section in 1980 was 10 blokes at war establishment but that didn’t stop Warrior carrying 8 because that was a good balance between a useful size dismount group and vehicle design specs. Different countries have different section organisations but something so malleable a concept shouldn’t be the main basis behind a vehicle that needs to last half a century.
There’s also the fact that HS30 didn’t carry the normal German sized infantry section and neither did Marder. And I believe neither did the AMX10 take the previously standard sized French infantry section size. And neither did BFV or Warrior.
I see. As far as I can discern, Bob’s point was that vehicle capacity and section (capitalised or otherwise) size should be linked so if you do compromise on capacity for vehicle design reasons, then the section size should be altered to match.
Although, having said that, if, at time of introduction a section size was ten men, then Warrior matched that perfectly, with 3 crew and seven dismounts. FV432 with crew of two and eight dismounts also matches. At present a mechanised or armoured section has to include the section vehicle crews.
Right, let’s have a stab at this.
I think, think, what Phil is saying that if you call a platoon 30 men (which it give or take a man is) then it makes little difference to the chaps on the ground whether you spilt that number between four vehicles carrying 8 each (32 capacity) or 5 vehicles carrying 6 each (bang on 30).
What that would mean for the design company would be that rather than them trying to labour away in order to build a vehicle that specifically fit 8 men per vehicle, they should favour an approach where x amount of vehicles can service a platoon of y men.
So if it’s easier and cheaper for them to build a vehicle that only carries 6 dismounts, then they should just do that and get on with it.
I think – think – that’s what Phil’s trying to say. I’ve been wrong before (yes thank you, many times, I know).
Warrior didn’t match it because ten men was war establishment, I suppose in those terms FV432 sections were 12 men.
Chris. Not quite. I’ve admitted my distinction Borders on pedantry. But what I mean is that a section does not operate alone it operates always as part of a Platoon. Even the section sized CPs in Afghan operate in the context of a platoon, just spread out. The PC has the perfect authority and nearly always the need to modify the platoons organisation to suit the tasks. Thus the platoon is the basic building block of operations in the Br Army. It can be broken down further obviously but the point is those breakdowns are at the PCs discretion. So such a malleable concept should not be used as the main driver in vehicle design. Especially since no one vehicle will operate independently it will always be operating as part of the platoon.
Furthermore Bob told me I was simply wrong about sections being an admin nicety but they are simply default settings over ridden at will by the PC.
What I expect to turn up in the empty spaces of the FRES Scout is Falcon and its components. An IP base tactical comms system shared between the army and RAF
– like downloading live video & whatever from sources above you (who operates what size of kit with wings is not important; probably a much less heated question than the rotary wing assets?)
Is DSEi the reason why the Government has not published its equipment review – can we expect Liam Fox to speak at DSEi and to summarise which equipment programmes are going ahead?
It would also be good to get confirmation on Scimitar 2 as the rumour I have read is just under 40 built as a UOR, new build hull with existing turrets, to deal with fatigue cracking in current Scimitar’s.
IXION,
Still not googled the word “most” I see.
Phil,
Marder, Puma and HS30 do not carry a standard German squad but they do carry a standard Panzergrenadier squad. Warrior does carry the standard British Army squad- 8 men dismount leaving 2 in the vehicle. FV432 sections have changed as the squad structure has changed. BFV is not a credible example as has been explained multiple times (and you are still ignoring GCV and EFV). The smallest coherent unit is a section, complete with two fire teams, that is why it is sections that are carried in MICV’s- like the Warrior section vehicle.
Furthermore stop telling lies, I never said squads operate independently, they are words that you put into my mouth to make up for you being wrong. Sections are not administrative niceties, they are key training and command units, like all other British Army formations they get adapted to specific roles but they are most certainly not administrative niceties.
Current British Army Infantry Sections:
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Bain,_The_Infantry_Section.pdf
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0029.html
It was implicit in what you said. Perhaps you might make the effort and understand the implications of what you say.
Yes they carried Pz Gr sections but by your logic they should have been designed to carry standard sections. As it was I believe that was the intention with HS30 for it to carry 12 men.
The section is a useful default setting and administrative grouping over ruled at will by the PC. It does not operate alone and thus need not be carried in a vehicle specifically designed for it.
I haven’t ignored the EFV which I thought was binned nor GCV I’m sure your spot on. Doesn’t change the fact that sections are rarely used as organised.
I’m not lying mate. Your implying what I said you are.
From ARRSEpedia;
“In the infantry a fighting unit consisting of 2 NCOs (one section commander and 2i/c), 6 men and possibly an AFV. Can be further divided into 2 Bricks for urban patrolling.
In reality a bored Lance Corporal and 4 men forming something for subalterns to give orders to on exercise or SNCOs to use for shit jobs.”
isn’t the (yes binned) EFV an anolomy as it was designed like it’s predecessor the AAV-7 to carry 17 fully bombed marines as well as 3 crew, which is why if you look at the specs, it’s ‘kin huge in all 3 dimensions (lxHxD). Just to add i’m not wishing to be drawn into the bunfight, thread is about cvr(T) not section/platoon tatics. although i respect bob’s encyclapedic knowledge, i also most definatley respect phils quite obvious experience.
So to fuse their thoughts sections are a part of a platoon, they may be given a specific task to which they operate independantly ie fire support up on hill whilst another section advances to contact. overall the PC has control, so any future vehicle should be able to take at least 8-10 dismounts (note key word dismounts) and have the electronic capability to interoperate with the other vehicles in that platoon. (in 22 years spent many a time in a platoon harbour, but never a section harbour, slight hint).
phew not bad for someone who wasn’t joining in!!!
right i’m off to slow mo alex jones chest on that come dancing thing, let’s hope the MOD designed her dress so there’s a malfunction!
The more interesting question is who should dismount? Should the platoon commander stay with the vehicle or not? Especially if the vehicle(s) have cannon mounted.
I think there are 12 marines + 1 nco in a USMC squadron. And AAV7 can carry more than 17 marines. Some sources quote 23 and others quote 25. The size is I believe as much to do with “sea keeping” as PAX capacity. One of the ways the AAV was deployed was to drive off the back off the bank ramp of a Newport class under weigh. The AAV would be completely submerged then pop up like a cork. Not for the faint hearted.
Bob
Since your ‘expertise’ comes for google I will leave that to you.
Paul g
I understand the marines were very unhappy with the AA7 in iraq. Due in part to it’s size and vulnerability. Although the lates russina BMP3 is a size!
You said it Paul G. Platoon harbours never a section harbour.
Platoons fight not sections so the emphasis should be on how the vehicle and it’s dismounts can operate in the context of the Platoon engagement. And as you point out the vehicle needs to carry a useful slice of combat power but it should not be built around a contemporary notion of the Section since that paper organisation changes and in reality that paper organisation seldom is seen for a myriad of reasons. In reality it seems that most AFVs have seen the abandonment of the infantry section as a main driver and many have compromised on 5-6 dismounts like HS30, Marder, BFV and AMX10.
As for should the PC dismount. That is entirely up to him. Officers are paid to think, even Subbies. In my opinion an Officer leads and does not direct so SOP should be out the back with his blokes.
That RUSI link describes the section in an abstract manner. It mentions nothing about how it operates or the practicalities of it. It’s also quite outdated now. The other link even more so.
Phil
I understand your points, but as you said you border on pedantry, as I don’t think we can afford an massive AIFV that carries the whole platoon :-)
So I agree that whether it is 8, 10 or 12, it may not really matter, but as Mr. Fred said, you have to have a basis for a design, and so why not use the “paper” establishment of a section.
Or, just go the other way round, as a Warthog can carry more people than a Warrior, just make Mechanised sections (and platoons) bigger than Armoured Infantry ones……..
Some up to date info regarding Warrior posted by buglerbilly on the 5th column blog.
Industry sources believe an announcement about the WCSP project will be made by Peter Luff, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, or possibly Defence Secretary Liam Fox to coincide with DSEi.
Lockheed Martin UK is offering an upgraded version of the original Warrior turret which it argues provides a more cost effective solution than a completely new turret design. Partners on the bid include the Defence Support Group; Rheinmetall Defence (weapon mount); SCISYS (electronic architecture); Meggitt (ammunition handling system); Ultra Electronics (power; driver instrument panel); Thales UK (Battlegroup Thermal Imaging; sights); and, Curtiss Wright (servo system). The upgraded turrets will be protected by appliqué armour and feature larger hatches to allow easier access by crew members wearing combat body armour. Both the driver and commander are provided with new mine blast resistant seats.
The MoD has stipulated that WCSP turrets and the turret on the General Dynamics UK, Scout reconnaissance vehicle will be armed with the CTA International 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannon and Ammunition system which is being provided as Government Furnished Equipment. General Dynamics UK has subcontracted Lockheed Martin UK to develop a new turret for the Scout. The MoD has stipulated that there should be a high degree of commonality between the WCSP and Scout turrets.
Chassis updates to the Warrior include electronic, environmental, power and survivability improvements. A modular protection system across the chassis enables the quick change and adaptation to mission specific or in-theatre threats. Examples of protection include bar armour, ERA and ‘special armours to be fitted or removed easily upon heavy damage’.
The army’s original plan to upgrade up to 449 “gun vehicles” has been reduced in scope as the Future Force 2020 structure introduced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) only requires six armoured infantry battalions, one in each of five new multirole brigades (MRBs) and the training battle group at the Land Warfare Centre, instead of the eight battalions previously equipped.
Moreover, the new force rotation cycle only requires one MRB to be deployed, or on high readiness to deploy, and second brigade preparing for deployment and the other brigades at extended readiness times with reduced equipment holdings.
no mention of the training group at BATUS in the orbat? fairly heavily armoured centric.
Great information, thanks percontator,
I seem to remember that SDSR statements were talking about AI being brought down from 9 to 5? Now in
“up to 449 ‘gun vehicles’ has been reduced in scope as the Future Force 2020 structure introduced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) only requires six armoured infantry battalions, one in each of five new multirole brigades (MRBs) and the training battle group at the Land Warfare Centre, instead of the eight battalions previously equipped”
that residual one is being thrown around, so will it yield 337 upgraded gun vehicles?
We’ll soon know, and then the plans for the other hulls will also take shape (at some point).
– and that will have a knock on effect on early FRES SV numbers (and the versions to be ordered in the next few years)
MoD article up about entry into ops. Not bad seeing it’s just getting its public showing at DSEi.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/UparmouredVehiclesBeginAfghanistanOperations.htm
If you kit out a BRR, how many of the 35 (+30 others, if they make it in time) would be left over, for general fire support/ overwatch use, if any?