British Army's FRES project moves along

[AGRA]

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.

And you know of anyone else who is better LM and NGC?

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.

We live in hope for the all mighty EM gun. Predictions of it won't happen tend to leave egg on faces. I respect your material sci creds, you're the best at it I know, but you never know what someones banging away at just out of sight. I don't ever but I live in hope!

 

[buglerbilly]

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.

Not quite, C-130 was the basis according to initial presentations. The plus side is that FRES ignored this pretty early on.

The whole design basis of FRES was supposed to be the fact that nothing Commercially available OR foreseen was suitable. Boxer/MRAV was cancelled 'cos it was too big.

And 'scuse the expression but don't take it personally if I throw up into a brown paper bag when you mention MoD caring about Cost. SMART procurement, a misnomer if I ever heard one, has nothing to do with the step change for FRES and any savings resultant.

The current Budget shortfalls and Brown's persistence in under-funding what is known necessary for Ops and current Projects are the hard-driving reasons
for any "savings". Quite simply put they cannot afford FRES in its original vision, full stop.

Regards,

BUG

 

[Super Nimrod]

Oh I hear you BUG, and agree procurement is not what it could be, but most countries have problems in this area to some extent.

 

[buglerbilly]

Oh I hear you BUG, and agree procurement is not what it could be, but most countries have problems in this area to some extent.

Ain't that the truth! I cringed a couple of years ago whilst listening to someone here in Oz tell the audience they were going to follow SMART procurement. I had to leave, ranting at someone in public does little for your image!

As it was, his comments went down like a lead balloon, especially as a number of people present were/are what I would call true professionals in procurement and project management just not in Defence.

His presentation was crap, his content shockingly dated, and his ability to answer any detail questions limited, and that's being polite.

Rant over.............

 

[swerve]

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. ....

About 75%, not counting the A330MRTT, which are likely to have other things to do & can't carry AFVs or fly into rough fields. 25 A400M & at least 6 C-17 (the current orders) can lift as much as about 70 C-130, & carry it further & faster. We bought 25 C-130J, & IIRC have lost one, & the older C-130s will retire as the A400M enter service.

 

[Waylander]

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

I never intended to praise how the FRES project actually works.
But I see the benefits of having a project which spits out new technologies on a regular basis for your future land vehicle fleet without concentrating on getting the ultimate gold plated multi purpose vehicle family.
That British MoD is on the way to screw this idea is another story.
I would give a big applause if they would choose the Boxer. Tells you something about the sanity of the procurement process in the UK (Not that it is not also screwed in other countries).

And when did I ever stated that I think that FCS is going aywhere near 20 tons. My comment about the Stryker should show that I think it is impossible.
30-35 tons is still not enough for me.
How does one wants to get high suruvivability on the battlefield, firepower and mobility into such a light vehicle.
Even with active/passive protection systems.
Hell, this is in the range of a Puma A or CV90 Mk.III...
I do not see the tech being ready in the near future to get all the eggs into one basket without loosing basic capabilities compared to a heavier vehicles which maybe are not the same basic chassis but offer much more capabilities.

 

[Wooki]

And you know of anyone else who is better LM and NGC?



We live in hope for the all mighty EM gun. Predictions of it won't happen tend to leave egg on faces. I respect your material sci creds, you're the best at it I know, but you never know what someones banging away at just out of sight. I don't ever but I live in hope!

ummm, ahhhh, good point :nutkick . However, I would venture that Lockheed Martin and QinetiQ are the two most able to produce the systems required.

My material creds are shit. I just work in dirt, but then again dirt is way more complicated then a heavy weight LRP alloy, eh?. I would agree about people beavering away. There is this one guy who might be able to make things happen if the normal NIH syndrome can be side stepped. It depends on how much they really want this EM thingy.

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

I guess what irritates me the most is that Generals become salesmen for "ideas" and that is what leads to a mess more often then not. :idea2 Its all that Israeli's fault (wothizface tahl?)IMHO as if that guy hadn't gone and made the Merkava, then they would all pull their heads in and get on with what they are good at doing, rather then pretending they know how to do shit they haven't got a clue about.

I mean, just take a look at the rafale project...

why would you do this?..why?:unknown

cheers

w

 

[AGRA]

I mean, just take a look at the rafale project...

why would you do this?..why?:unknown

Well the Bloch family do own about half of France and Marcel D'assault (was Bloch) is kind of like the French Benjamin Franklin...

 

[riksavage]

In addition to the decision this month over the FRES utility, MoD officials have also moved forward with the FRES reconnaissance vehicle, awarding assessment-phase contracts for BAE Systems’ CV90 and General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD.

Which model would you go for?

 

[harryriedl]

In addition to the decision this month over the FRES utility, MoD officials have also moved forward with the FRES reconnaissance vehicle, awarding assessment-phase contracts for BAE Systems’ CV90 and General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD.

Which model would you go for?

CV90 CV90 i think it would be perfect all thought ASCOD is good. i think CV90 would be best suited to UK reqirement as well as the commonality with the Nordic contries and the dutch would be very handy. especialy with the CTA gun

 

[riksavage]

One thing I don’t understand is why select ASCOD or CV90 for the reconnaissance role, these are basically IFV’s similar to a Warrior or Bradley. The FRES reconnaissance version is replacing CVRT (Scimitar & Spartan) a fast, agile and lightweight platform. I would have thought the powers-that-be would have gone for a dedicated 3-man crewed tracked or wheeled vehicle capable of being carried in a C130 or as an EH101 / Chinook under-slung load.

Then again are there any new 3-man tracked reconn platforms out there capable of providing protection against the current primary threat (RPG's, small arms and IED's), which are light enough to be transported by anything less than a C17?

 

[buglerbilly]

Defense News seems to think the French VBCI has the inside track in the FRES Utility contest............we'll fiind out in a couple of weeks!

Regards,

BUG

 

[harryriedl]

One thing I don’t understand is why select ASCOD or CV90 for the reconnaissance role, these are basically IFV’s similar to a Warrior or Bradley. The FRES reconnaissance version is replacing CVRT (Scimitar & Spartan) a fast, agile and lightweight platform. I would have thought the powers-that-be would have gone for a dedicated 3-man crewed tracked or wheeled vehicle capable of being carried in a C130 or as an EH101 / Chinook under-slung load.

Then again are there any new 3-man tracked recon platforms out there capable of providing protection against the current primary threat (RPG's, small arms and IED's), which are light enough to be transported by anything less than a C17?

the reason they are necessary in my eyes because present saber, scimitars and the recon CVR[t] don't quite cut the mustard in these modern battles thats why their is the necessity to replace them also they are getting on in age. the CVR[T] a good design but not great against IED and RPG. that why going up a class to a cut down CV90 would make a much more versitie and stronger tank. also the CVR[T] aren't coptible with the new warrior gun

 

[kato]

Actually, quite simply, there's no other tracked system on offer that are in production. In Europe and North America anyway.
The only two other tracked systems that are currently in production are Puma (waaay too pricey, no off-the-shelf recon variant) and Wiesel 2 (not suitable for armed recon). Everyone's switching to wheeled systems, or has never used a light tracked system for recon like the UK.

If you want tracked, armed, recon variant, MOTS: CV90 and ASCOD are the only options.

 

[swerve]

Actually, quite simply, there's no other tracked system on offer that are in production. ....

Is Dardo not available? Even if not rolling off the line, AFAIK it's sitting there waiting for the Italian government to allow the army to buy some more.

 

[kato]

Is Dardo not available? Even if not rolling off the line, AFAIK it's sitting there waiting for the Italian government to allow the army to buy some more.

Iveco/Otobreda competed with Dardo for "tracked IFV" within FRES, before the MoD decided to procure a wheeled design. So yeah, it would probably be available too. Even though i don't think Italy has really exported any locally designed armoured vehicles since the OF-40.

Problem is that the MoD would probably want Alvis or GD as main integrator, considering these two also provide the turrets for FRES mostly, it seems. So that would play into the selection. Alvis offers CV90, GD offers ASCOD; both were pretty much kicked out of the IFV procurement process with the decision for a wheeled system.

 

[riksavage]

One assumes, regardless of what hull they select, they will fit the same turret / weapon configuration planned for the upgraded Warrior – 30mm or 40mm to ensure communality.

As UK recce elements traditionally form a screen ahead of heavy armor, work independently on long range surveillance tasks (Iraq / Iran border) or provide infantry battalions with indigenous recon I would personally go for 40mm with the option to fit an externally mounted ATGW (dedicated recce regiments only) thus packing the biggest punch possible for the role.

 

[swerve]

One assumes, regardless of what hull they select, they will fit the same turret / weapon configuration planned for the upgraded Warrior – 30mm or 40mm to ensure communality. ....

40mm CTWS - please!

 

[harryriedl]

40mm CTWS - please!

Amen! to the CTA gun

 

[Marsh]

It will be fitted, most likely some examples of the FRES light and heavy tracked vehicles. Less likely to equip the UV.