British Army's FRES project moves along

[Musashi_kenshin]

Thales UK-Boeing Selected for FRES Integrator Role

Thales UK and partner Boeing have been selected by the British Ministry of Defence as the preferred bidder for the system-of-systems integrator (SOSI) role on the British army’s key Future Rapid Effect Systems (FRES).The announcement took industry by surprise, with the Anglo-U.S. team led by Thales being selected without the competition ever getting beyond the prequalification questionnaire stage.
The SOSI will play a key role in helping the MoD coordinate procurement of more than 3,000 medium-weight armored vehicles covering utility, reconnaissance, fire support and maneuver support. It is the highest priority program in the British army. At the time the prequalification questionnaire was issued, SOSI bidders said it was one of the most thorough documents of its kind they had seen in a long while.

Until earlier this week, SOSI bidders had been expecting a down-select of the competing teams followed by an invitation to tender. A selection had originally been slated for the end of November. But the expected procurement process was overturned Oct. 5 with the announcement that Thales and Boeing had been selected.

The incredibly tight timeline for a decision on the SOSI and other elements of the program was set by Defence Minister Lord Drayson as part of a drive to get the first utility vehicles in the much-delayed FRES armored vehicle program in service no later than 2012. A competition to supply the utility vehicle element of FRES, currently underway between the Artec Boxer, General Dynamics Piranha and the Nexter VBCI, is coming to a close. A decision on that is also expected at the end of November.

Drayson has always said that his preference was to pick one vehicle design as a straight winner but would down-select to two if the competition was close. On the basis of the bold decision over the SOSI, it seems more likely now that he will select just one vehicle to go forward to the next procurement stage, perhaps before the end of November as originally envisioned.

Drayson said the SOSI decision, which was almost two months ahead of schedule, demonstrated the excellent progress now being made on FRES. “The selection of the SOSI is a key part of our innovative acquisition strategy designed to ensure that we deliver the best solution for the army as quickly as possible,” he said.

The winning team beat out competition from consortia led my Finmeccanica, Jacobs Engineering, Lockheed Martin, QinetiQ and possibly others. The SOSI is a new role for the British procurement authorities. In a statement released Oct. 5, the MoD said the Thales-Boeing team will provide six key services to help the ministry achieve overall program objectives: program management; system-of-systems engineering and integration; development of the industry-government alliance to be created to build the vehicles; help the MoD develop its own SOSI competence for the future; through-life capability management; through-life technology management.

Of considerable importance, some here are saying, is that the SOSI will give Thales and Boeing an influential role across British development of the battle space, particularly when the more network-capable elements of FRES, like the reconnaissance vehicles, come into service after 2014. The competition for those vehicles is about to get underway. The British army hopes to get the first of those vehicles in service after 2014.

The next significant step for the FRES program will be the release of a prequalification questionnaire for the utility vehicle integrator — the company that will actually build the winning platform. The MoD said the vehicle integrator questionnaire will be issued to industry by the end of this month.

BAE Systems and General Dynamics UK will be among the bidders. Vehicle integration is the only role left open to local armored vehicle builder BAE in the utility vehicle phase of the FRES program. The company’s contender for the utility vehicle design, a diesel powered eight-wheel-drive version of their Swedish developed SEP hybrid electric, was not selected for the trials.The company, along with General Dynamics and MBDA, was also part of the Finmeccanica team that lost the SOSI bid.

 

[buglerbilly]

Hmmm yeah I read this a couple of days ago..............

So much for "let's have a contest.............."

To be honest I can see BAE moving all of its Land Warfare/Systems activities across the pond.

The MoD seems intent on proving itself emminently capable of killing British Industry, and no I don't think BAE should automatically be given contracts BUT cognizance has to be taken of keeping industry fed.

Passing knowledge to that well known British company Boeing (sarcasm) is NOT going to help anyone but the parent company in the USA and by default DoD.

 

[Izzy1]

Must admit, the speed of this particular decision surprised me and does seem rather peculiar. I have a fear it is an attempt at a "piece of good news" before another series of defence cuts (the much-speculated RN reductions for example).

I am also still to be convinced by the MoD's arguments that selection either of Boxer, Piranha or VBCI truly represent the best options available.

 

[kato]

I am also still to be convinced by the MoD's arguments that selection either of Boxer, Piranha or VBCI truly represent the best options available.

Umm, Boxer is originally a MoD joint design, remember. With Alvis as part of ArTec.
Just saying.

And BAe's concept of going into it with a SEP that was just-so-modified to fit FRES requirements (eg mechanical transmission instead of the electrical transmission all other SEP have)... well, not a good idea when going up against "mature" systems.

 

[Wooki]

Thales UK-Boeing Selected for FRES Integrator Role

Well, I guess the next question is, how does the MoD shut down the FRES program and re-bid?

Say what you like about LM, QinetiQ and BAE, they are emminently more capable of delivering FRES then any flavor of Boeing and yegods, Thales.

It is generaly held in the USA that the desision to go with Boeing/SAIC for the FCS was a big frakking mistake and the FCS has really only been saved by (you guessed it) GDLS and BAE.

It is beyond stupid that the UK would even consider a Boeing bid for any future combat system based upon their sub-par (and often laughable) performance in the FCS program.

If MoD continue down the path they have chosen they are on their way to a train wreck of the largest proportions,IMHO of course

cheers

w

 

[buglerbilly]

Well, I guess the next question is, how does the MoD shut down the FRES program and re-bid?

Say what you like about LM, QinetiQ and BAE, they are emminently more capable of delivering FRES then any flavor of Boeing and yegods, Thales.

It is generaly held in the USA that the desision to go with Boeing/SAIC for the FCS was a big frakking mistake and the FCS has really only been saved by (you guessed it) GDLS and BAE.

It is beyond stupid that the UK would even consider a Boeing bid for any future combat system based upon their sub-par (and often laughable) performance in the FCS program.

If MoD continue down the path they have chosen they are on their way to a train wreck of the largest proportions,IMHO of course

cheers

w

Quite but don't ya know that FRES and FCS are totally separate programmes, hence the morons at MoD would never trust or rely on anything you Yanks tell us, experience or believe................

Some of the FRES stuff is like watching a parallel universe in operation, one utterly devolved from OUR reality! :unknown

 

[Super Nimrod]

I am prepared to give it the benfit of the doubt. Real experience in Iraq and Afghanistan will at least have had some influence on its gestation and so some of the less deliverable specifications eg the original low planned weight have been put to one side.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I'm not commenting on the decision, but given the fact spending is tight I doubt the MoD would have chosen two companies that clearly wouldn't do a good job. I'm also willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[AGRA]

It is generaly held in the USA that the desision to go with Boeing/SAIC for the FCS was a big frakking mistake and the FCS has really only been saved by (you guessed it) GDLS and BAE.

It is beyond stupid that the UK would even consider a Boeing bid for any future combat system based upon their sub-par (and often laughable) performance in the FCS program.

Typical POV of a vehicle guy. The SOSI is not about vehicles, its about a battle management system - computers and radios. Unlike FCS FRES is not developing new vehicles but will simply acquire OTS vehicles. The SOSI will then integrate the BMS into the vehicles.

What Boeing and SAIC have done for FCS is hugely significant. They have developed a system of systems that will enable a person in one vehicle to operate a separate vehicle while their own is driven automatically with everyone looking at a shared common situational awareness picture. It doesn't matter if this vehicle is a FCS MGV or a CV90 or an ‘M1A3’.

 

[Waylander]

Which is IMHO exactly the better way to implement new technologies into your land forces.

Instead of trying to put every egg into one universal basket which is never going to reach the capabilities of more specialised vehicles one implements the systems which really count into more traditional platforms.

Just look at NLOS-C.
Less capable than SPHs which entered service 10 years ago with the only advantage being a better strategic mobility.

At least the US dropped the laughable C-130 requirement.

 

[AGRA]

Just look at NLOS-C.
Less capable than SPHs which entered service 10 years ago with the only advantage being a better strategic mobility.

NLOS-C is a terrible example to judge FCS by. Compared to the Crusader XM2001 it replaced it’s a far less capable system. But this is a decision courtesy of the evils of ole Rummy… However the 2020 upgrade to NLOS-C to an EM Gun (assuming they get the tube life up to over 1,000-2,000 rounds) will make the rest of the world’s artillery look like Napoleonic muzzle loaders.

However look at FCS’s ICV, RSV and MCS. These vehicles will be far more capable than the Bradleys, Abrams and Strykers they will replace. With the advantage of having a common chassis and systems.

The FCS MGVs will still be C-130 liftable – yes a ridiculous requirement – at reduced armour and without ammunition (like the Puma with A400M). However this requirement has seen a range of new technologies introduced that significantly push down weight in comparison to combat power and force protection. The Diesel-Hybrid engine, the remote turrets, the two man crew, the advanced armour arrays, the active protection system, etc. All goodness that will mean an FCS equipped unit will motor around in MLC30 vehicles that will rival MLC70 vehicles in combat power.

 

[Waylander]

You cannot say that this family of vehicles is a have to while comparing them to designs which are decades old (Even if upgraded).

For sure they will be good.
But what if the requirement for making the whole US Army capable of strategic air transport was not in place and such a radical familisation would not be a requirement?
What kind of highly capable vehicles could be developed with the same budget?
It is ridicoulus to think that the US Army is going to airlift whole armored and mech inf divisions. How should they be supplied? Airlift all the supplies also directly into the theater? I don't think so.

And I am fully aware of the shown abilities of the Crusader SPH before it was axed by Rummy. This should have been THE new primary SPH for the US Army. One can develop a light artillery system for supporting the light quick reaction formations.
They are going to be deployed rapidly and would be happy about one.

Now think about what kind of tank or IFV or whatever one could develop with the same budget of FCS but without these idiotic requirements.

They would be better because they would be more specialised. They would have a bigger logistical footprint but not bigger than todays systems and as long as I can see the US Army is able to support its troops in the field these days even with several different types of vehicles.

These new technologies (Of which how many are ready for the FCS program?) are not going to fade away just because one drops the requirements (strategic airlift and familisation).
A heavier tank of the future will not have less advanced armor (but more of it) or a less capable active/passive defense system. But it will have more space for ammo, weapons, equipment and crew.

We talked about this during a discussion about the advantages of light brigades.
You insisted on the point that a light networked force is going to dance with a heavier opponent. And it works against less advanced heavy formations.
But these networked advantages are available to any of your own forces be it heavy or light.
Light forces are easier to deploy and have a smaller logistical footprint but just because they are networked doesn't mean they are the better high intensity warfighters compared to heavy units. Nothing prevents heavy unist from being also heavily networked or prevents new more specialised developments from using the same new technologies.

 

[harryriedl]

You cannot say that this family of vehicles is a have to while comparing them to designs which are decades old (Even if upgraded).

For sure they will be good.
But what if the requirement for making the whole US Army capable of strategic air transport was not in place and such a radical familisation would not be a requirement?
What kind of highly capable vehicles could be developed with the same budget?
It is ridicoulus to think that the US Army is going to airlift whole armored and mech inf divisions. How should they be supplied? Airlift all the supplies also directly into the theater? I don't think so.

And I am fully aware of the shown abilities of the Crusader SPH before it was axed by Rummy. This should have been THE new primary SPH for the US Army. One can develop a light artillery system for supporting the light quick reaction formations.
They are going to be deployed rapidly and would be happy about one.

Now think about what kind of tank or IFV or whatever one could develop with the same budget of FCS but without these idiotic requirements.

They would be better because they would be more specialised. They would have a bigger logistical footprint but not bigger than todays systems and as long as I can see the US Army is able to support its troops in the field these days even with several different types of vehicles.

These new technologies (Of which how many are ready for the FCS program?) are not going to fade away just because one drops the requirements (strategic airlift and familisation).
A heavier tank of the future will not have less advanced armor (but more of it) or a less capable active/passive defense system. But it will have more space for ammo, weapons, equipment and crew.

We talked about this during a discussion about the advantages of light brigades.
You insisted on the point that a light networked force is going to dance with a heavier opponent. And it works against less advanced heavy formations.
But these networked advantages are available to any of your own forces be it heavy or light.
Light forces are easier to deploy and have a smaller logistical footprint but just because they are networked doesn't mean they are the better high intensity warfighters compared to heavy units. Nothing prevents heavy unist from being also heavily networked or prevents new more specialised developments from using the same new technologies.

how about the BAE paladin PIM program trying to keep a 1960s tube in service
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub..._Paladin_Self-Propelled_Howitzer110013681.php

WASHINGTON: BAE Systems will unveil a new look for the battle-proven M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer at the Association of the U.S. Army's Annual Symposium and Exhibition in Washington during October 8-10. The new-look Paladin, dubbed the M109A6 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, is a semi-automated, air-conditioned and electronically controlled artillery system designed to meet the needs of the U.S. Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCTs).

"Artillery is playing an important role in operations in Iraq, with the Paladin providing critical fire support with both standard and precision munitions," said Adam Zarfoss, BAE Systems' director of artillery programs. "The M109A6-PIM is the next step in Paladin development to ensure this essential fire support system remains ready and sustainable for soldiers in the HBCT through its projected life beyond the year 2050."

The Paladin is the primary indirect fire support system for the HBCTs, and the M109A6-PIM is supported by the Army as a vital technology enhancement program to maintain the combat capability of its HBCTs. The M109A6-PIM will solve long-term readiness and sustainment needs of the M109 family of vehicles, which includes the M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle, through a critical redesign and production plan that leverages the most advanced technology available today to provide a more robust, survivable and responsive indirect fire support capability for HBCT Soldiers.

Click to Enlarge
M190_howitzer_1.JPG
M109 Houwitser
More Military Pictures
The M109A6-PIM uses the existing main armament and recently designed cab structure, while replacing outmoded chassis components with advanced components from the Bradley Combat Systems, to increase sustainability and commonality across the HBCT.

It also incorporates select technologies from the Future Combat Systems Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, including an automated projectile loader and modern electric gun drive systems to replace the current hydraulically operated elevation and azimuth drives designed in the early 1960s. The electric gun and ammunition handling components, as well as a micro-climate (air conditioning) system, will be powered by BAE Systems' Common Modular Power System (CMPS).

CMPS, which will be installed on Stryker and has also been installed on High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) demonstrator vehicles, is based on architecture jointly developed by the Army Tank-Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center and the Program Executive Office - Ground Combat Systems. The system featured on the M109A6-PIM is capable of providing 35 kilowatts of 600-volt direct current which can be used for voltage conversion and can support other higher power loads required within the Paladin platform.

The M109A6-PIM is considered to be the most cost-effective method to significantly improve sustainability and survivability, while reducing the logistics burden on the HBCT and supporting fires brigades. The program will be executed as a public/private partnership between the Army's Project Manager-HBCT, Anniston Army Depot and BAE Systems that leverages the strengths of both public and private sectors to ensure the best value for U.S. Soldiers. The M109A6-PIM production would be performed at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and BAE Systems facilities in York, Pennsylvania; Aiken, South Carolina; and Elgin, Oklahoma.

For more information about the BAE Systems M109A6-PIM, please visit BAE Systems AUSA Press Kit.

BAE Systems is the premier global defense and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, information technology solutions and customer support services. BAE Systems, with 96,000 employees worldwide, had 2006 sales that exceeded $27 billion on a pro forma basis, assuming BAE Systems had owned Armor Holdings, Inc. for the whole of 2006.

seems like madness to me when their are AS90 and Pz2000 are are in service and have been in service for a decade or more.

 

[Waylander]

It defenitely is madness.
The US Army had a highly capable SPH available which was axed nearly seconds before final approval.
Now they uprade 60 years old SPHs again and again.

For sure a M109A6-PIM has much better capabilities than the older versions but it still lacks some critical things.

1. Mobility. The whole chassis is just not able to match 21st century requirements.

2. Range. It still remains a 39 calibre gun.

The battlefields of today are filled with less troops than ever before. And despite all this talking about air support one just has to ask veterans from Iraq where they got by far the most fire support from. Artillery...
And having a SPH which lacks range and mobility in an army like the US one is IMHO not understandable.
With the money they pump into the old M109 they could have bought Crusaders or SPHs off the shelf (ok that's not possible...).

Such a purchase would have costed more money in the beginning but one just have to think about the increased maintenance requirements of a 60 years old platform in comparison.

 

[buglerbilly]

What makes anyone think FCS remains lightweight? See below..from ARES blog........

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:31697243-682d-475c-8cb1-a0d31fc1eb9f

Army "Future" Vs. Roadside Bombs

Posted by David Axe at 10/9/2007 2:44 AM

The Army's $120-billion Future Combat Systems -- a light, networked family of vehicles intended to replace a third of the active tank and Bradley fleet -- was conceived in the 1990s before Improvised Explosive Devices and Explosively Formed Penetrators started demolishing U.S. forces in Iraq. So does the FCS concept still hold water?

No, according to Ana Marte and Elise Szabo in an August 2007 study for the Center for Defense Information:

Based on the deployment of prototypical [FCS] systems in Iraq since the beginning of the war there, analysts … are unaware that this concept has achieved even rudimentary feasibility. Indeed, the devastating success of enemy IEDs and [Explosively Formed Projectiles] in Iraq has led to the deployment of heavier armor, not lighter, and an acknowledgement that the enemy rarely permits itself to be found and identified by sensor hardware.

Army officials disagree. Program manager Major General Charles Cartwright insists that FCS is still the way to go, for it represents one way of breaking the endless cycle of "up-armoring" that has resulted in 15-ton "Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected" trucks replacing 7-ton Humvees in Iraq. "If all we're doing is piling on armor, where does that stop?" Cartwright asks.

The key, officials say, is applying all the lessons learned in Iraq to make the FCS vehicles as survivable as possible in the event of a blast, while still counting on improved sensors and networks to spot and avoid bombs -- in a sense, swapping some armor for more information. Even after four years of dirty, low-tech war in Iraq, the network is still "the most important thing to come out of FCS," says Brigadier General James Terry, who's responsible for developing FCS tactics.

The vehicles themselves have been redesigned in light of Iraq, Cartwright says. "We've learned an awful lot about IEDs and EFPs."

The general won't go into specifics, but angled hulls to deflect blasts and new layered armor for defeating EFPs both surely play a role. Plus, they're heavier.

Long gone is the 20-ton weight limit and the requirement to fly aboard C-130s. FCS vehicles will be transported by C-17 and, more often, by ship.

The FCS brigades that actually deploy around 2015 won't look at all like those in the original 1990s plan. In addition to the heavier FCS vehicles and all the robots, FCS brigades will probably include MRAPs upgraded with network terminals, sensors and new armor kits. The Army and Marines are still studying the exact mix of MRAPs and FCS vehicles, but Cartwright assures that "there are going to be wheels inside an FCS [brigade combat team]."

 

[Waylander]

I already said that I am glad they skipped the C-130 weight limit.
But they still want to make it light.
Just becuse they skipped a 20 ton requirement which came out of fantasyland doesn't mean they are going to be heavyweights.

That they skipped the 20 tons border is because they found out that it is just not possible and not because they are away from the "lighter is better" doctrine.

Why they ever thought that they could get all this stuff into 20 ton vehicles is not imaginable for me.
I mean even a Stryker comes with more than 20 tonnes...

IMHO one should let the FCS program run but not as a project intended to field a full family of new vehicles but as a program which regularly spits out new tech which can be implemented into new developments or as upgrades into existing vehicles.

As I said before, more in the line of FRES.

 

[Marsh]

FCS has suffered from some very unfortunate timing in terms of current US Army obligations and both it and EFV seem likely to find their numbers and budget tempered by MRAP spending.

There is a suggestion that the UK MoD is about to orer 600 MAN 6x6 trucks with armoured cabs and a modular rear end to act as armoured utility vehicles and MRAP-type APCs / patrol vehicles equipped with a RWS. No word on whether that's true but along with the extra Mastiff order and the MPPV programme it might see FRES Utility Vehicle numbers cut.

I feel the Piranha IV / V will win this.

 

[Wooki]

Typical POV of a vehicle guy. The SOSI is not about vehicles, its about a battle management system - computers and radios. Unlike FCS FRES is not developing new vehicles but will simply acquire OTS vehicles. The SOSI will then integrate the BMS into the vehicles.

What Boeing and SAIC have done for FCS is hugely significant. They have developed a system of systems that will enable a person in one vehicle to operate a separate vehicle while their own is driven automatically with everyone looking at a shared common situational awareness picture. It doesn't matter if this vehicle is a FCS MGV or a CV90 or an ‘M1A3’.

LOL, Hit the trees, but not the wood of the target AGRA. I am talking exactly about SOSI and my personal experience with the people in Boeing that have tried to generate the "systems of systems" approach. To put it mildly all Boeing employees that I have met with regard to the FCS (except perhaps 3 individuals) are inept and incompetent and live in a kind of La La land that just makes you blink.

There is no reason to believe that the same disease hasn't spread to Boeing (UK) and that is why I am stunned that the MoD would even let them bid on the FRES, let alone award a key contract of that system to them.

I'm not an SAIC cool aid guy either. It is my honest third party opinion based upon observation and incidently I don't have any commercial interests in FCS, other then being asked how to correct items and then after having provided the solution have a (Boeing) guy argue for something absurd, despite objections from sub-contractors within the scheme. Now, given, this might be some groups ploy to just get you out of the way and then make the idea their own so they don't have to pay you, but do you really want to work with people like that?

Obviously the MoD feel differently, but unfortunately I have been around long enough to realize that "MoD", "DoD" and others, means a group of 4 or 5 guys in a conference room suffering from I think what John Cleese called "collective stupidity" or something like that. Where you take the average shoe size of the people in the room and multiply it by 2 and you get the IQ behind the decision to come out ot the room. It is an international phenomena, but provides a distressingly low number if you use UK shoe sizes.

cheers

w

However the 2020 upgrade to NLOS-C to an EM Gun (assuming they get the tube life up to over 1,000-2,000 rounds) will make the rest of the world’s artillery look like Napoleonic muzzle loaders.

rivate rivate You do realize how difficult that is, right? No one person or company in industry is even remotely able to approach 100 shots (60 shots is not approaching 100, its 40 shots short) from an EM weapon. 1000 shots is something that requires a TB that you might not see for another 50 years. In other words you have a <2% chance of seeing a thousand shot EM weapon in the next 50 years.

 

[buglerbilly]

I already said that I am glad they skipped the C-130 weight limit.
But they still want to make it light.
Just becuse they skipped a 20 ton requirement which came out of fantasyland doesn't mean they are going to be heavyweights.

That they skipped the 20 tons border is because they found out that it is just not possible and not because they are away from the "lighter is better" doctrine.

Why they ever thought that they could get all this stuff into 20 ton vehicles is not imaginable for me.
I mean even a Stryker comes with more than 20 tonnes...

IMHO one should let the FCS program run but not as a project intended to field a full family of new vehicles but as a program which regularly spits out new tech which can be implemented into new developments or as upgrades into existing vehicles.

As I said before, more in the line of FRES.

Huh? What pray tell has FRES actually produced? Damned if I know and damned if anyone in the UK knows!

They put a so-called Systems house in charge of the process who have NEVER dealt with vehicles before, never mind armoured vehicles of any kind. They were/are a Civils and Oil&Gas/Services Engineering & Consultancy house.

ONE, but only one of the reasons we have the current cluster.

The second reason, but not the last, is the lack of direction given by MoD. The whole process has wandered all over the place......repeatedly! Exactly the same problem has occured with FCS.

WHY it took years, many millions and some light bulb going off in their collective craniums to work out that the C-130 basis was/is crap is beyond most sane people.

The decisions that have been made in the last 2-3 years with regards to Bulldog, Vector and Mastiff have zip, nada, nichts, to do with FRES.

They are reactive acquisitions based on events in the Middle East etc. As such they are almost entirely Urgent Operational Requirements procurements.

Its taken how many years to go for the current FRES Utility vehicle contest based on BOxer, Nexter's VBCI and LAV IV/V?

Gee it must have been difficult working that lot as candidates, NOT! The fact it could have been done with the same vehicles 3 years ago seems some how to have been ignored.

And do you really think FCS is going to be anywhere near 20 tons? Try 30-35 tons, possibly more for some vehicles................this is certainly in the weight region the USMC estimated was required and history has shown their guess was better than the Army's.

Regards,

BUG

 

[Super Nimrod]

For the UK though the weight decision was not a difficult one as they know that in the future at least 50% of its airlift capability will be made up of A400's and C17's and that the C-130 will be less significant. Had those two options been unavailable then I suspect that a much lighter vehicle of a completely new design would have been procured rather than variants on current machines.

The UK mOD care massively about cost and if they are to buy 4000 of these as they have suggested then the cost saving would be significant if they don't have to design something from scratch.