34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Defenceinsider
December 2, 2013 8:14 pm

Did you catch the mod vehicle RFI today?

Brian Black
Brian Black
December 2, 2013 8:24 pm

Is that a recognised procedure for shooting over tree tops?

x
x
December 2, 2013 8:27 pm

http://sixgun.org/files/inflatable-tank.jpg

(Yes I know that pic’ has been posted more than once here.)

Chris
Chris
December 2, 2013 8:28 pm

BB – perhaps the fine chaps manning the vehicle should have paid better attention to the instructions for elevating the gun?

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
December 2, 2013 9:45 pm
Red Trousers
Red Trousers
December 2, 2013 10:02 pm

The Regimental LAD (or at least one of the Tiffies within it) used to have a really cool party trick. He was skilful enough with the use of the crane that he could pick up a CVR(T), and then place it down on 8 beer mugs (four pairs of two underneath the four extreme road wheels). I saw him do it several times, once at a party the Regiment hosted for all of the Regimental children. They were enthralled. Quite breath-taking: IIRC only once did a single beer mug crack and smash.

I know that the physics works out, but it was still really impressive to watch. Recy Mechs may have “a certain reputation” within the REME, but he was extremely skilful.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
December 2, 2013 10:44 pm

Is it me, but that does not look like a Foden wrecker?

El Sid
El Sid
December 2, 2013 11:26 pm

So, given that Aerostats Are The Answer To Everything™ – how much helium would you need in a balloon to overcome the difference between the lifting ability of the MAN SV Recovery and the weight of FRES SV?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
December 2, 2013 11:58 pm

El Sid,

near as makes no difference, 2 cubic metres of helium to lift one kilogram.

So, give me the parameters (mass of FRES SV and lifting capacity of a MAN crane), and we’ll have an answer. I suspect it’s going to be difficult to hide it.

martin
Editor
December 3, 2013 2:26 am

Just goes to show there are no easy options when it comes to selecting armoured vehicles. Until some one invest’s some form a revolutionary light weight armour we will still be having to decide if we want good protection or great mobility. One of the problems I suppose with the selection of 8 wheeled medium armoured vehicles as most seem to have gone for is that the are relatively heavy approaching 30 tonnes but probably still not good enough to deal with the largest IED’s.

Could a high low solution be the best option. Keeping a light weight CVR(t) type design but having large stores of heavy armoured patrol vehicles like Mastiff etc on hand if needed for another protracted COIN campaign? Sounds expensive though.

Observer
Observer
December 3, 2013 3:19 am

Martin, the “largest IEDs” is open to a lot of interpretation, anything can be cracked with enough explosives, so even if you had a tank resistant to, say a random number of 100 tons of explosives, someone is just going to use 110 tons. The upper limit is always open to moving upwards.

That being said, I suspect that the current 8x8s actually have better resistance than an MBT to IEDs or mines due to their design. The MBT isn’t really designed for mine resistance, and the closer to the road surface nature of the underbelly and flat design needed to lower the profile does not help. The 8x8s on the other hand, come with sloped armour on the underbelly that the height of the wheels allow. Just a matter of what the vehicles are designed for.

martin
Editor
December 3, 2013 6:49 am

@ Observer –

“Martin, the “largest IEDs” is open to a lot of interpretation, anything can be cracked with enough explosives,”

That’s true. In some ways it shows the impossible situation that all armies are in in fielding protected mobility but at the same time its much easier to bury a single 155 mm shell and set it off than to bury 100 tons of explosive by the side of the road.

But no matter what vehicle we choose it is always going to be vulnerable to IED’s. I am starting to come to the conclusion that the ruthless commonality envisaged under the FRES program is a mistake and we will likely have to have a range of different vehicles for different tasks and even see units being able to switch vehicles depending on the tasking.

The entire thing is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and I don’t think anyone has the right answer. This is atleast part of the reason that FRES has been such a cluster f**k (Only part though as the Army brass have allot to answer for).

But I can guarantee no matter what vehicle or ethos is chosen there will be severe compromise.

Defence Insider
December 3, 2013 8:07 am

This is the one I meant. I don’t think its trhe same

Armoured military vehicles. The Operational Support Programme (OSP) is to deliver four new vehicle projects on behalf of Capability Director Combat Service Support (CD CSS) and Capability Director Medical (CD Med):

• Multi Role Vehicle – Protected (MRV-P) is a Cat A project intended to meet the requirement for a protected deployable platform employed by all Force Elements, at all scales of effort, in a wide range of environments, and on all parts of the battlefield except for the direct fire zone. The MRV-P should bring commonality to the fleet and reduce the logistic footprint for utility vehicles by 2020.

• Non-Articulated Vehicle – Protected (NAV-P) is a Cat B project to meet the requirement for a protectable Palletised Load System (PLS). This would replace the ageing and unprotected DROPS fleet, enabling logistic support by a protected fleet to concurrent operations from 2020.

• Light Weight (Air Portable) Recover (LW(AP)RC) is a Cat D project to meet the requirement for a recovery capability that is air portable and that can wade ashore with Commando Forces to provide intimate support to Very High Readiness (VHR) forces by 2016

• Future Protected Battle Field Ambulance (FPBFA) is a Cat C project to meet the requirement for a Protected Mobility (PM) battlefield multi role ambulance. This will enable in-theatre protected movement of casualties, whilst delivering expected clinical care by 2020.

The OSP Programme Management Office (OSP PgMO) in the DE&S at Abbey Wood is conducting a Market Survey to inform Concept Phase activities related to these projects. OSP PgMO intend to release a Request For Information (RFI) to those parties who may have an interest in providing a solution to one or more of these requirements. The RFI will be sent out in early 2014 to those who express interest, together with supporting programme information.

Observer
Observer
December 3, 2013 8:10 am

OTOH martin, there is a rather big difference between resistant and nuts all protection (Snatchs), so an average amount of resistance might be a good idea provided it did not compromise main function. As you pointed out, there is a practical limit usually on the amount of kaboom that one can plant.

“But I can guarantee no matter what vehicle or ethos is chosen there will be severe compromise.”

So true. If there was one vehicle that could do it all, everyone would be clamouring for it.

Don’t really see anything wrong with a common chassis though, provided it ticked most of the boxes. FRES recovery with crane, FRES APC, FRES Fire Support, FRES Light Tank, FRES AVLB etc. Helps logistics. What the UK probably screwed up was spending scads of money on studies and trials only to have second thoughts, conflicting primary wants and dittering. Aka “pay for paperwork”. I can just see an evaluator going: “Whee!!! Job security for the next 4 years!”

I’ll now duck out before RT comes back. :P

Think the West has lost a lot of the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
December 3, 2013 8:31 am

i’d still like a relatively low-tech/low-maintenance CV21 with a 40mm CTA and ~17tonne limit, to be given to the three AF cavalry regiments.

these to provide some bolt-on muscle to 16AAB or 3Cdo when the situation requires, or, some teeth to an AF stabilisation force as needed.

Defence Insider
December 3, 2013 9:29 am

No problem – probably worth a page on its own.

It certainly looks like FRES UV but it doesn’t explicitly say so.

Bob
Bob
December 3, 2013 9:43 am

Being able to do that makes it much easier to extract the corpses from it after the relatively small IED blast which it is totally incapable of defeating.

Bob
Bob
December 3, 2013 9:49 am

DefenceInsider,

Which one looks like FRES-UV to you? None of them look like FRES-UV to me. MRV-P is an OUVS successor programme and the others are all niche role vehicles of one form or another. In fact the more I look at them the more they all look like they are OUVS in origin.

wf
wf
December 3, 2013 10:03 am

: I suspect the idea of different chassis for different tasks is perfectly acceptable, provided sub-systems can be moved. If you operate on the basis that much of the vehicle cost is communications and optics, and have standard physical enclosures for same, you can keep bare vehicles in storage no problem. Moreover, COIN is a specialism in the way that general war is not, so while you need three sets of Reaction Force kit, you could quite easily get away with a brigade plus set of COIN gear. Synchronize tours with deep maintenance periods, and it should work out very nicely

martin
Editor
December 3, 2013 10:46 am

@ Wf – I am not sure if common chassis are enough. How do you arm 16AAB with something that can be air transportable and use the same vehicle to transport rec units in the armoured formations and also give the guys in the stabilization forces something that will stand up to an IED all on the same chassis.

The requirements just seem too varied to me.

wf
wf
December 3, 2013 10:47 am

: indeed, hence different chassis. I think you might have misread something :-)

Defence Insider
December 3, 2013 11:49 am

Ah yes OUVS – I had forgotten about that one!! You are of course spot on.

OUVS was something we were really looking hard at in my previous company – we had graphics and everything for a full suit of vehicles :-)

Heres a link to a rather good blog I read on the subject of OUVS
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/09/ouvs-operational-utility-vehicle-system/

so is it a window shopping trip or are they going to have some money in their pockets?

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
December 3, 2013 2:48 pm

I have been thinking about FRES for quite a while now and always the thing that comes to mind is that it is trying to do too much, it is trying to replace both combat orientated vehicles – Scimitar and transport orientated vehicles – Bulldog with a common design. To me I would leave them separate, i.e. a light tank and a new APC, if we want a new IFV, we already have Warrior, I would take all the non-combat roles away from the light tank family and give them to the APC family,

So the new support vehicle would take over Ambulance, Command, Cargo, Communications, Fire Control and Transport roles, it would be armed with remote weapons stations with the cargo area being role specific,

Whilst the Combat vehicle I am envisaging being a Scimitar replacement (approx 10 -15 ton) with the 40mm gun off of the Warrior, I would in an ideal world want it to be air deployable and amphibious, this would allow it to operate as a combat support platform to any unit in the Army and RM, from day one of an operation.

I would then take the Engineering and Recovery roles away from both and give them to the current Challenger/Warrior based vehicles, Maybe converting a few more if possible from unused chassis.

Looking to the future I would do a similar thing with the Warrior replacement i.e. take the non-direct combat roles away from Warrior and give them to the support vehicle detailed above so that the IFV retains just the Infantry Section Vehicle role, and all engineering/recovery roles transfer to challenger based or specialist models.

A connecting factor between these 3 vehicles (Combat/IFV/Support) would not be the chassis but rather the parts that bolt onto it and the parts that make up these parts. I am thinking weapons systems/sensors/power etc.

Observer
Observer
December 3, 2013 4:04 pm

I took a look at Defence Insider’s post on the OSP proposal and get the feeling that the UK MoD just reinvented the wheel.

For goodness sakes, you already have the Warthog that’s stooging around looking for a job. The UK already has a recovery variant, an ambulance variant, troop transport variant and the drops pallet is an off the shelf item. Best of all, it’s already in your vehicle sheds and in service, so no extra cost on the government overall, though I do get that money is going to have to be shifted between the Treasury and the MoD due to the UOR nature of the buy.

Just tear off the plat mount and take off all the extra armour that it was loaded down with and it should get the original amphibious capability back. Problem solved.

Warthog

Air transportable? Check, even by medium/heavy lift helicopter if you do it in 2 pieces
Rec variant? Check.
IED resistant? Check.

So either go with the Warthog or the newer Viking 2s. They do seem to tick most of the boxes.

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
December 3, 2013 4:38 pm

@ Observer

Yes Warthog and also other UOR vehicles could fulfil the 1st, 3rd and 4th roles layered out but the 2nd role is for a larger vehicle and is actually well underway.

The 2nd role for an armoured transport system is already being undertaken by purchasing 7285 MAN SV’s.

x
x
December 3, 2013 4:49 pm

Light Weight (Air Portable) Recover (LW(AP)RC) is a Cat D project to meet the requirement for a recovery capability that is air portable and that can wade ashore with Commando Forces to provide intimate support to Very High Readiness (VHR) forces by 2016

Um……

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/images/m113-al-hadeed-image01.jpg

I would prefer a Warthog variant. But not sure if it would work…….

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
December 3, 2013 4:51 pm

Does the LW(AP)RC need to be armoured/protected, maybe an open top vehicle, it will save on weight.

Observer
Observer
December 3, 2013 5:16 pm

x, it should, the Warthog’s actually close to the same weight as the 113. 13 vs 15 tons I believe. The UK’s one was uparmoured to 19 tons.

At about 1:17, you can see the recovery variant with the crane. Or the more stabilised version.

http://lh4.google.com/kskbh.ifnet/R7-d_5mpUqI/AAAAAAAAAmo/LiQggCo9IhA/s512/IMG_0006.JPG

Deployed

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/bronco.jpg

Folded.

Not sure if the UK version is the same, it probably is.

Just had a strange thought. The weight of the original Warthog is close to the CVR(T)’s as well, you can probably do the same stunt as the picture above if you can stop the modules from flopping about. :)

Edit: Odd, youtube link vanished. Go look up Warthog on the Salisbury Plains and skip to 1:17

x
x
December 3, 2013 5:28 pm

@ Observer

Yes. But the M113 is more compact, the load sits closer to the CoG which means better traction, etc. etc

I would rather have Warthog. As I have said lots of times here the money pee’d up the wall on not buying FRES would have bought have lots of Warthog……

I had forgot about those groovy wheeled trailers. :)