British Army Discussions and Updates

[Grim901]

Recent purchases of MRAPs have filled part of the requirement the wheeled FRES vehicle was meant to fulfil, taken some of the money meant for it, & the experience which led to buying the MRAPs via UORs has led to a re-think of the rest of the requirement. I think wheeled FRES is dead, at least for the time being.

A400M will depend on whether EADS can come up with a convincing remediation plan, acceptable financial terms, & (most of all) politics.

Agreed.

I doubt EADS will manage to make the A400M look like a good idea now. They're relying on the fact that France is desperate for it to succeed to stop the entire program from being cancelled for being, overweight, under performing, late and over budget - Pretty much everything that can be wrong with a procurement program.

 

[citizen578]

Stormer is too small, also based on the Scimitar family. They need a vehicle with a turret and capable main armament, but with a low profile. You stick a turret on Stormer and you end up with a very unstealthy design. The new 40mm Warrior turret fitted to an existing AFV chassis will be ideal, hence the likely decision to go with ASCOD or CV90.

I fail to see that. Stormer has a lower profile than CV90 (2.49m vs 2.7m), is capable of carrying a modern turret and weapon (Stormer 30 has just this - with a bushmaster 2 & high-tech turret), has room for additional equipment/personnel, is combat proven, and is easily air-transportable.

I'm not touting the Stormer as the solution, but am questioning what the massive advantage of having the CV90 hull is. Afterall, it's only attempting to re-dress an IFV as a recce vehicle.

The armour situation is the obvious one, but is it of the same value to a recce wagon as to an IFV? Is it really necessary to have the same type of armour, rather than saving weight by protecting essential areas only?

On another note I really hope that the Pirhana IV is permanently ditched - what I've heard of the performance of US Strikers in Iraq and elsewhere isn't exactly reassuring.

Is the RM 'armoured recce' role going to be based on the Vking/Bronco, or yet another new vehicle? I'm sceptical as to whether the Pongos would be willing or able to wind their necks in sufficiently to allow it. It all gets so bloody political...!

And of cource, that still doesn't solve the problem of how to support 16AA with a vehicle that isn't Air Assault-able!

 

[riksavage]

Other than going for the ASCOD or CV90 chassis, the newer Stormer 30 (light tank/recce vehicle) could be a potential option, however it remains in the prototype phase whereas the previous two are in production. The fact that BAE builds both Stormer and CV90, IMHO means they would typically only submit the latest & greatest for tender. The fact that the CV90 production line is still running saves valuable money, plus it has newer technology. Stormer 30 is also only designed for three crew members, the driver, a commander/loader and the gunner.

The RM Commando Brigade already have an Army maneuver unit (1 Rifles), 29 Commando (Gunners) and a Sqn of Engineers attached full-time to the Brigade under Navy C&C. Re-rolling an Army Recce Reg to the Commando role, equipping them with ASCOD/CV90 tracked recce armed with 40mm is the next logical step providing the Brigade with a protective screen for the Viking/Bronco's. Throw Javelin, Starstreak and Apache into the mix and you have a pretty potent light force. The Household Cav, like 7RHA & 9 Sqn can be left to support 16-AA Brigade.

 

[swerve]

Agreed.

I doubt EADS will manage to make the A400M look like a good idea now. They're relying on the fact that France is desperate for it to succeed to stop the entire program from being cancelled for being, overweight, under performing, late and over budget - Pretty much everything that can be wrong with a procurement program.

The UK would lose an awful lot from it being cancelled. The UK work share is considerable (wings & the greater part of the engines), which I think is rather more than our share of orders to date.

I've seen British people expressing pleasure at its troubles, which I can only attribute to a lack of understanding of who makes what.

 

[Firn]

The UK would lose an awful lot from it being cancelled. The UK work share is considerable (wings & the greater part of the engines), which I think is rather more than our share of orders to date.

I've seen British people expressing pleasure at its troubles, which I can only attribute to a lack of understanding of the who makes what.

There seems sometimes quite some glee towards a specific program, in case of the UK against "European" ones. As swerve pointed out the UK will loose quite a bit if it gets cancelled. The management of it was of course aweful.

For example I find it sad that so large parts of the FCS and the FRES were canned. But then again I have as a project manager also some emphaty with the guys in charge

 

[SkolZkiy]

Guys heard in news that UK is stopping producing tanks Chalenger 2 and BAE-systems closes production lines?

 

[Grim901]

Guys heard in news that UK is stopping producing tanks Chalenger 2 and BAE-systems closes production lines?

They finished being delivered in 2002. The production line is gone.

You must be talking about the fact that one of the factories that helped make them is being closed by BAE systems.

 

[citizen578]

Other than going for the ASCOD or CV90 chassis, the newer Stormer 30 (light tank/recce vehicle) could be a potential option, however it remains in the prototype phase whereas the previous two are in production. The fact that BAE builds both Stormer and CV90, IMHO means they would typically only submit the latest & greatest for tender. The fact that the CV90 production line is still running saves valuable money, plus it has newer technology. Stormer 30 is also only designed for three crew members, the driver, a commander/loader and the gunner.

The RM Commando Brigade already have an Army maneuver unit (1 Rifles), 29 Commando (Gunners) and a Sqn of Engineers attached full-time to the Brigade under Navy C&C. Re-rolling an Army Recce Reg to the Commando role, equipping them with ASCOD/CV90 tracked recce armed with 40mm is the next logical step providing the Brigade with a protective screen for the Viking/Bronco's. Throw Javelin, Starstreak and Apache into the mix and you have a pretty potent light force. The Household Cav, like 7RHA & 9 Sqn can be left to support 16-AA Brigade.

My original point was to suggest a more appropriate alternative, I already knew that ASCOD and CV90 were the hot favourites.
I would have to disagree again with your thoughts on Stormer vs CV90, and would suggest that infact Stormer is at a later development stage than a CV90 ligtht-tank/recce wagon. It's already been trialled, and is essentially just a modernisation of a design that has been battle-proven in various guises everywhere from Malaya and the Falklands to Afghanistan. It also has commonality and all-important trustability within the Army. What is the sense in taking an IFV (which we have no shortage of), ripping it to shreds, then rebuilding it in the image of a recce/light-tank? The CV90 is already a success for BAE, I'm sure they'd love the opportunity to lauch another vehicle (which has, sans CV90 FRES, different role) with a dream contract with the British Army!

I think pigs will fly before they get a combat vehicle as heavy as a CV90 FRES, or even Scimitar. Organic capability with the viking replacement and jackal is one thing, but a full-on armour capability is quite another. So the question remains of how to support light/airmobile units with a vehicle which is neither light, nor airmobile. Getting green-hatted isn't the problem, there are thousands of commando-trained soldiers, but it's pointless unless they have equipment which go where the marines/paras can go.

 

[citizen578]

Vector withdrawn after just 3 years

From DMJ:

The MoD has been forced to withdraw the Vector armoured vehicle from combat operations even though it was just procured under an expensive urgent operational requirement less than three years ago.

Five soldiers have died in the Vectors since they were introduced to Afghan operations in the summer of 2006. MoD officials said that the evolving nature of IEDs had led to bigger more power roadside bombs and mines since 2006 that could penetrate the Vector's armour.

"We intend to withdraw Vector from operations in Afghanistan. This will be a phased withdrawal and will not lead to any capability gap," an MoD spokesperson said.

In July 2006 the MoD purchased 100 Vector vehicles as part of a UOR. Already there were 66 Vectors in service. The cost for the Vector UOR alone totalled £100m.

The vehicles however were flawed from the outset. Despite the lessons learned from the insurgency in Iraq, the MoD bought the Vector which has a flat bottom instead of the safer V-shape design which can help to deflect explosions.

Critics have said that the Vector was poorly armoured all around to deal with larger IEDs and landmines.

The vehicles, which were used as troop transporters, were deemed "coffins on wheels" by some vehicle experts.

The MoD has promised to learn lessons from the recent string of deaths and the ineffective Vectors.

 

[Palnatoke]

From DMJ:

The MoD has been forced to withdraw the Vector armoured vehicle from combat operations even though it was just procured under an expensive urgent operational requirement less than three years ago.

Five soldiers have died in the Vectors since they were introduced to Afghan operations in the summer of 2006. MoD officials said that the evolving nature of IEDs had led to bigger more power roadside bombs and mines since 2006 that could penetrate the Vector's armour.

"We intend to withdraw Vector from operations in Afghanistan. This will be a phased withdrawal and will not lead to any capability gap," an MoD spokesperson said.

In July 2006 the MoD purchased 100 Vector vehicles as part of a UOR. Already there were 66 Vectors in service. The cost for the Vector UOR alone totalled £100m.

The vehicles however were flawed from the outset. Despite the lessons learned from the insurgency in Iraq, the MoD bought the Vector which has a flat bottom instead of the safer V-shape design which can help to deflect explosions.

Critics have said that the Vector was poorly armoured all around to deal with larger IEDs and landmines.

The vehicles, which were used as troop transporters, were deemed "coffins on wheels" by some vehicle experts.

The MoD has promised to learn lessons from the recent string of deaths and the ineffective Vectors.

That's what happen when you ask BAE to do a £100M paint job on a 40 year old austrian truck...

 

[Firn]

That's what happen when you ask BAE to do a £100M paint job on a 40 year old austrian truck...

A most brilliant and excellent truck or IMV for the Alps and difficult terrain, but a most terrible and dangerous truck to drive in on an Afghani road waiting for the an IED.

 

[riksavage]

The Pinzgauer is a great vehicle and is loved by the troops who drive the softskin version. The Vector was designed to replace the Snatch, however they were dreaming when they thought they could provide the necessary level of protection for that weight class of vehicle - a total botch job.

 

[Palnatoke]

What was the purpose of the vector, haling suplies or what?

 

[Firn]

What was the purpose of the vector, haling suplies or what?

Seems that it was used for patrols, with a rather large section in the back. The orginal Pinzgauer was built to be as light and mobile as possible and BAE enclosed the vehicle and slapped some armor on it. Thus it was deemed fit to patrol. Perhaps a almost decent vehicle for the open desert, but in many regions of Afghanistan traffic tends to get for long streches channeled to narrow roads. No wonder that there most of the IEDs are positioned. Driving with it there seems short to of using it as APC in an armored brigade driving against a soviet tank division as the worst possible idea.

The original plan, 2006

VECTOR provides good protection and, importantly, increased mobility and capacity compared to SNATCH Landrovers which makes it very suitable for the rugged terrain and long patrol distances in Afghanistan.

Here a report from late 2007.

 

[Palnatoke]

Sorry I am confused, they intended to use what I think is more described as a utility truck with armour pasted on as a combat patrol vehicle?

 

[Firn]

@Palnatoke: It can also be used as troop transporter, but not as patrol vehicle in IEDstan..


To some extent this videos show the intended roles:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOKIeaqtPzY&feature=related"]Pinzgauer climbing[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNtpQvhGBB0&feature=related"]4x4 and 6x6[/ame]


Adding armor makes it neither fish nor flesh.

 

[Palnatoke]

amazing truck...

 

[riksavage]

The Pinzgauer was introduced to replace the one ton LandRover, which used to be used by 29, 7RHA and other light gun regiments and mortar troops etc. The vehicles cross-country performance is exceptional.

There was never a requirement for it to be armoured prior to Iraq/A-Stan. The UK manufacturer who bought the sole rights to produce the vehicle from the Austrian's simply offered a 'protected' version (same level as Snatch), which provided protection against fragmentation and small arms. It was never intended to be marketed as a full on MRAP vehicle.

The increasing use of sophisticated IED's meant that the Vector became obsolete before it was even deployed, hence the UK's decision to go for the Mastiff's, Ridgebacks etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

The Panther's have now arrived in theatre, these where spec'd prior to the A-STAN conflict, they are not full-on MRAP vehicles and could again end up being the wrong platform, too lightly protected. However They have made some improvements, quote as follows:

"Panther, which was delivered to 1 Mechanized Brigade for training last summer, has undergone design adjustments following a series of hot weather trials to make them ready for operations in Afghanistan. These include:

* rear view camera for improved situational awareness
* protected engine compartment
* the addition of a fourth crew member
* theatre-specific electronic counter-measures"

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/PantherArrivesInAfghanistan.htm

 

[swerve]

I expect the Vectors to soldier on somewhere. They'd be very good for peacekeeping duties, for example.

 

[Grim901]

I expect the Vectors to soldier on somewhere. They'd be very good for peacekeeping duties, for example.

Yeah they're not getting rid of them, just not using them if Afghanistan anymore. Plenty of uses for them in Britain and on other future duties with a lower IED threat.