British Army Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grim901

New Member
I agree that the Scimitars shouldn't be taken out of service until a replacement is found.

The new 40mm turret (anglo-French design) is supposed to be pretty revolutionary (defensenews.com article couple of weeks back) so I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.

Most of my thinking about the need for learning the lessons of the current conflicts when designing a replacement is based on an article I read a while back from Michael Yon, where a Scimitar he was travelling with (in Iraq) got hit by an IED, the vehicle was repaired in the end, but the 3 crew were all killed. There were also similar reports about the Bulldog. So despite the fact they can go offroad, doesn't mean they always will/can.

It wouldn't be a massive task to design a new light tank with some more resistance to minestrikes when even shaping the hull can help. As for air transportability, I think that is still crucial and the aim should definitely be for a vehicle below the 15 ton mark, but the introduction of the A400M's (if/when it ever gets sorted) will help, since it is designed to carry up to 30(?) tons, (even though it probably won't because EADS have managed to fail at meeting the design brief for the first few aircraft at least :S ).
 

citizen578

New Member
@ Outsider,

I'm not remotely suggesting that Scimitar, or the other vehicles of the CVRT familiy be withdrawn without replacement, or even have reduced employment. All I'm trying to do is brainstorm it's future replacement. I love the design of the scimitar, theres nothing quite like it out there (which is part of the problem), and its also shown a fantastic capability where other armour simply can't reach (a classic example being the falklands).
However, nostaga and the 'can do' attitude for which our forces are famous will not always translate into an effective system.

I neglected to include mines when I mentioned IEDs in my previous post. A scimitar could easily be ripped apart by a mine strike. Even the latest vehicles with v-hulls and crumple zones, and even MBTs such as the Netherlands' Leo2s are seeing crew-deaths in Afghanistan from minestrikes. That our cavalry regiments have thus far been spared a mass of in-vehicle deaths is part miracle.

The hard work in the form of the turret technology has been done, and even selected, all that remains is to produce a hull and powerplant which can deliver the goods. With an operational date of 2013 for the new turret (in the warrior) that gives 4 years in which to sort the hull out. That's do-able, especially in consideration of the rapidity with which some fairly impressive new vehicles have come online for the UK's Afghan mission.

I'm not an expert on armoured vehicles, hence my original question, but that's my take on it. If there are any experts following this, I'd be grateful if you could fill in the blanks.
 

citizen578

New Member
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4006741&c=LAN&s=EUR

LONDON - Britain and France have agreed to a common process to qualify the gun and ammunition for a revolutionary new 40mm cannon design to be used by the armored forces of both countries.

This is the culmination of a 15-year development effort by CTA International, a joint venture of BAE Systems and Nexter, to field a weapon whose projectile is encased inside a cylinder with the propellant packed around it.

CTA International officials say that if the testing of around 20,000 rounds goes to plan, the cannon and most of its ammunition types should be cleared for action by 2012.

CTAI Chairman David Leslie told reporters attending a March 18 briefing here that the qualification effort would begin in the fourth quarter of this year.

The joint venture, based at Bourges in central France, has spent 75 million euros ($102 million) developing the weapon. The French and British governments have plowed an additional 25 million euros into the work, mostly to fund turret demonstrator programs using the weapon.

A spokesman for the Anglo-French company said the two nations agreed on a position on the approval of the new cannon and case-telescoped ammunition at a recent meeting.

"Discussions over funding the test work are ongoing," he said.

The British have already mandated use of the weapon on a turret update of the Army's Warrior infantry fighting vehicle and the scout version of the upcoming Future Rapid Effects System armored vehicle.

France has yet to commit to an order for the weapon.

CTAI Managing Director Gilles Sarreau said the company has had good feedback about the cannon from the French Ministry of Defense's procurement arm, the DGA.

The French military is expected to deploy the cannon on at least part of its VBCI, AMX-10 and upcoming EBRC armored vehicle fleets. What's not clear is whether it will opt for a manned or unmanned turret. Both types have been the subject of demonstrator programs using the Warrior as a test platform.

The design of the round has allowed CTAI to replace the normal breech arrangement with a static ammunition feeder with less than half the parts of a standard gun.

The round is fed into a novel rotating breech via a hollow trunnion. CTAI officials said this allows the breech to be well forward of the crew, allowing better fightability and communications.

The company said the novel cylindrical packaging, which has the appearance of a large beer can, halves the length of the round compared with conventional 40mm ammunition, and improves the volumetric efficiency by 30 percent for a given level of performance.

Company officials said the cannon design takes up about the same space inside the turret as a 25mm gun, but gives the punch of a 50mm weapon.

"I believe the case-telescoped armament system will offer a step change in both military effect and cost-effectiveness," Leslie said. "It's the biggest advance in gun technology since the advent of rifling over 100 years ago."

Qualification will initially cover the 40mm cannon and associated armor-piercing, training and general-purpose rounds. Development of an air-burst round is expected to be complete at the end of the year, and is expected to follow down the qualification route about nine months behind the other ammunition types.

CTAI also has tested a guided munition using a smaller dart based on Thales UK's hypervelocity Starstreak anti-air missile.

Leslie said the two companies had proved the guided munition could work, but the idea has been sidelined to focus on current requirements.

The CTAI executive said other calibers like 120mm, 105mm and 25mm had been looked at for development, but for now at least, the money required outweighs the expected benefits.

The case-telescoped 40mm package is at system readiness level 7 with the airburst round at level 6.

Officials from the Anglo-French company told reporters at the briefing that resources are being ramped up to deliver readiness level 8 and design freeze by the end of the year.

Billets for 60 barrels have been purchased, and additional guns are being assembled at CTAI's Bourges factory.

Discussion on the supply of ammunition components continues. Company officials confirmed that the British ammunition will be assembled at BAE's Glascoed munitions plant.

The new cannon is scheduled to make its debut on an updated Warrior vehicle sometime in 2013.

An invitation to tender to provide a new turret and cannon for the Warrior as part of a planned wider sustainment update is expected next month.

BAE is battling Lockheed Martin to supply an updated Warrior turret to replace a system that has a number of serious shortcomings. A decision on a winner is expected next year.

CTAI still has eyes on the U.S. market as well. The first integration work on the armament system took place in a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and in the subsequently cancelled U.S.-U.K. Tracer scout vehicle program.

Leslie said the new cannon fitted easily into the space left by removing the Bradley's 25mm cannon.

"I am confident the U.S. military will fit the weapon eventually," he said.
Cheers for the heads-up, Grim, that was an interesting article. I can't wait to see that beast operational.

I completely agree that the option to go off-road to avoid a threat is not always there, and nor should it be allowed to limit the scope of our recce forces. From the footage of mine strikes in Afghanistan, it's just as common in open desert as along roads, or any other choke point. My understanding is that most of the mines were simply thrown out of soviet helicopters almost at random.

I think the difficulty of transport is not so much getting it in theatre, but getting it around theatre at any great speed. The Scimitar's not particularly fast, but it can easily be slung under a helo and moved around (apparently it's even been successfully slung under a Hind!), which simply isn't achievable with anything much heavier.

The max payload of a Chinook is about 12 tonnes (admittedly that's from Wiki), so realistically that's the max weight we're looking at for a Scimitar replacement which doesn't require a major doctrine change.
 

outsider

New Member
citizen578 & Grim901

I haven't seen any indications that the MOD are intending to field a COMPARABLE light replacement for the Scimitar by 2013. They are looking at off the shelf, heavier vehicles such as CV90 or Dardo by 2013 though. So it looks to me that the MOD are intending to keep the Scimitar in service beyond 2013, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

I do agree that an eventual comparable Scimitar replacement should ideally be able to be CH-47 Chinnook transportable. At the moment both the Scimitar and BVS-10 Viking are able to be under-slung a Chinnook, and it would be a shame to lose that capability. But how much of a restriction that will put on increased protection levels remains to be seen.
 

citizen578

New Member
Why would they not field a comparable vehicle? It is, afterall, intended as a direct replacement for the Scimitar in the Formation Recce role.
The original in-service date for the UV variant of FRES was 2007, then pushed back to 2009, now suspended (presumably until the MoD can find the money), the recce variant was to follow asap. Now, the recce variant is at the top of the priority list, with an in-service date of 2013.

the current economic recession has led to a review of current major UK defence projects, which may well lead to some being deferred or even cancelled. This seems to have encouraged ATK to continue to press the cost and commonality advantages of the 30/40mm MK44, but it seems that the matter has been decided in favour of the 40CT. Furthermore, the decision to shelve the huge FRES Utility project means that WFLIP and FRES Scout have now moved to the top of the Army's major project priority list and they are both currently funded with expected in-service dates of around 2013. Bids for the WFLIP contract need to be in for the 4th quarter of this year. Clearly, there is still much to play for over the WFLIP/FRES Scout turret contracts, but BAE are far ahead of the competition's timescales and remain the one to beat.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm
^
good read, btw ;)

They are specifically not looking at off the shelf vehicles for FRES.
The hull might be derived from a current vehicle, as in the piranha 5 until recently intended for the utility variant (I can't say I'm disappointed they dropped it). The suggestions for the recce variant are the CTWS turret (for definite) mounted on a heavily modified CV90 or ASCOD hull (shortened, with lower profile, and lightened). Exactly what that means in terms of weight is what remains to be seen, but not to be able to transport by helo would be nothing short of catastophic for the army's current operating doctrine.

It would be interesting if they end up fielding yet another vehicle to support light/airmobile formations.
 

outsider

New Member
I highly doubt even a modified CV90/ASCOD would be helo transportable, but perhaps I'm wrong. I agree with you that it would be a bad idea to lose that capability.

Thats why I think the MOD will keep the Scimitar in service longer with light/airmobile formations.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
The best thing to do is to throw billions of pounds into the coffins of some national company - that don't pay tax - developing something that's comparable, except the "made in" sign to what other nations's companies has or will be developing in the same time span.

Because that's good for re-election. In the mean time the soldiers can run on mines with rovers or recce vehicles that belongs on a cold war museum.
 

outsider

New Member
UK Orders Jackal 2's and Coyotes.
Defenceoftherealmblogspot is fiercely critical as per usual.

U.K. Orders Nearly 200 Armored Vehicles
By andrew chuter
Published: 21 Apr 2009 15:49 Print | Email

ALDERSHOT, England - British companies Babcock and Supacat have formed an alliance to supply nearly 200 armored vehicles destined for the country's armed forces fighting in Afghanistan.

The 74 million pound ($108 million) deal with the Ministry of Defence will deliver 110 Jackal 2s and more than 70 Coyote Tactical Support Vehicles.

Related TopicsEurope
Land Warfare
Dunkeswell-based Supacat will provide the design and program management, while Babcock Marine will manufacture the vehicles at its dockyard facility in Devonport. About 55 million pounds ($81 million) will go to Babcock.

The two companies have been involved in the design and production of earlier Jackal orders under separate contracts awarded by the MoD.

The bulk of the new order, procured under Britain's urgent operational requirement scheme, will be delivered this year.

Jackal 2 is an improved version of the 200 Jackal 1 four-wheel-drive high-mobility vehicle that already provides patrol and reconnaissance capabilities to the Army.

The Coyote is a six-wheel-drive version of the Jackal, designed to provide tactical support.


Both vehicles have been purchased as part of a 700 million pound ($1.26 billion) protected patrol vehicles package announced by the MoD last October.

Navistar is providing a medium-weight capability and Force Protection a heavyweight support vehicle under previously announced orders. Coyote provides the lightweight element of the requirement.

The deal was announced by Quentin Davies, the minister of state for defense equipment and support, at the British Army's Long Valley testing ground here.
 

Grim901

New Member
Good to see more Jackals and Coyotes coming in.

I'm also happy that the Piranha 5 has been dropped. The whole design brief for the UV vehicle seems flawed to me in light of operational experience. A mix of wheeled and tracked vehicles seems like a more suitable option.

On the air transportability of the recce vehicle. It might be that some time in the future we see a heavier replacement for the Chinook coming in, the Franco-German Heavy Lift helicopter caught my eye the other day. It's being designed to carry things like a Dingo internally. Might mean that the trade off between mobility and armour doesn't have to be as bad if we can still transport them by helicopter.

But you're right, the replacement for Scimitar should definitely be air transportable or it removes the niche the vehicle has carved out. The CV90 and ASCOD, as IFV's, just seems too different and too heavy to be suitable candidates. They're pushing it/too heavy for C-130 transportability too. Using a C17 or A400M to move a recce vehicle about is like using an aircraft carrier to tow a banana boat, i.e. very silly.
 

citizen578

New Member
The best thing to do is to throw billions of pounds into the coffins of some national company - that don't pay tax - developing something that's comparable, except the "made in" sign to what other nations's companies has or will be developing in the same time span.

Because that's good for re-election. In the mean time the soldiers can run on mines with rovers or recce vehicles that belongs on a cold war museum.
Best thing to do... for what?

I don't understand the relevance of your sarcasm.
 

outsider

New Member
On the air transportability of the recce vehicle. It might be that some time in the future we see a heavier replacement for the Chinook coming in, the Franco-German Heavy Lift helicopter caught my eye the other day. It's being designed to carry things like a Dingo internally. Might mean that the trade off between mobility and armour doesn't have to be as bad if we can still transport them by helicopter.

But you're right, the replacement for Scimitar should definitely be air transportable or it removes the niche the vehicle has carved out. The CV90 and ASCOD, as IFV's, just seems too different and too heavy to be suitable candidates. They're pushing it/too heavy for C-130 transportability too. Using a C17 or A400M to move a recce vehicle about is like using an aircraft carrier to tow a banana boat, i.e. very silly.
If they can get the weight of a CV90 or ASCOD down to 14 or 15 tons so that its air transportable on a hercules whilst offering similar protection levels to the existing CV90 or ASCOD then its still worth doing, IMO. You could fit two onto an A400M.

Admittedly, it then wouldn't be a direct replacement for the Scimitar. As long as they provided a helo transportable replacement for the Scimitar at a later date, I'd be OK with that. But its all just speculation at this point.

Whilst some of us have expressed doubts, perhaps they can pull the rabbit out of the hat and produce a Scimitar replacement from the CV90/ASCOD. We'll just have to wait and see what they come up with.
 
Last edited:

Grim901

New Member
Best thing to do... for what?

I don't understand the relevance of your sarcasm.
Neither do I. I've started ignoring his posts because in at least one other thread he has repeatedly taken digs at the British military and industrial complex without much justification.

@Outsider: I'm don't understand why everyone seems so set on CV90 and ASCOD when they're designed for a different role and are unsuitable for the task required of them - a direct replacement for Scimitar, which is exactly what the FRES scout variant is. If the Scimitar will still need to be replaced by another vehicle, why do the CV90 or ASCOD need to be procured, they'll be filling a gap that isn't there. With the new 40mm turret the only difference between the CV90 and a Warrior will be 1 less space for passengers.

Since BAE build the CV90 + several MRAPs + plenty of other armoured vehicles, including some of the most popular on the planet, it couldn't be too hard for them to use some of that knowledge to build a direct replacement.
 

outsider

New Member
Grim901, I agree with you. I can only assume that the MOD are set on having a heavier, better protected RECE vehicle/and/or don't want to produce a new vehicle from scratch. As citizen578 mentioned the new vehicle will be a shortened version of the CV90/ASCOD, i.e. only 3 crew.

Honestly, it is puzzling. Perhaps there are also industrial reasons and the MOD are favouring a BAE Systems CV90 derivative and want to develop the range. There would probably be a market for a C130 transportable version of the CV90/ASCOD.
 
Last edited:

riksavage

Banned Member
The mission has evolved since Scimitar was first introduced in the 70's, the British military needs a bigger tracked vehicle capable of carrying more than a three man crew, hence the decision to go with a larger CV90/ASCOD configuration.

If we look at the traditional role of the Scimitar, the one it was designed for, it proved an ideal vehicle. It had to go where a main battle tank could go, it had to operate as a surveillance asset forward of the armoured regiments and have the firepower to take-on the enemy's equivalent recce screen (BRDM's and BMP's), hence the 30mm Rarden. Any replacement MUST be tracked, after all, how can you have a recce vehicle operating in the traditional role as the eye and ears of heavy armour if it is restricted by terrain and confined to an environment suitable to only wheeled vehicles?

With the introduction of C17 and hopefully more new A400/C17's, weight becomes a less critical issue when benchmarked against protection, firepower and increased capacity. Brigade Recce units operating in A-STAN need the capacity to operate for longer periods without having to replen. If any of you have ever been inside a Scimitar you will see there is bugger all room. The replacement will need to have the capability to carry specialised mission specific equipment, which could include additional FOO personnel, a Javelin or Starstreak firing post and/or bulky laser designators.

Even though 16 Air-Assault still occasionally pallet drop Scimitars, the need for a bigger more capable machine outweighs the need to continue exercising this option. Once an air-head is secure you can always bring in recce vehicles using improvised airfields (C17 was designed for this role).

The recce regiments are pushing for a tracked replacement, the Brit's have plenty of wheeled LRDG type alternatives in service.

The Scimitar will go down as one of the finest post-war recce vehicles, less ground pressure than a man, racing car performance, great NV capability and very popular with the crews. But it's simply too small, too hot and now totally knackered.
 
Last edited:

citizen578

New Member
There are other vehicles which provide versatility, without requiring a massive amount of logistics support to achieve similar levels of battlefield mobility to the scimitar.
For example, BAE's Stormer:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product964.html?PHPSESSID=fa448a11cce0cf063cbceff517c6bdfe
I fully take your point that the Scimitar is too old, and too small. The Household Cavalry are based in my home town, and I've looked around their kit a few times.
However, why tie-up the RAF's precious 6 C-17s, plus the specialist troops required to prepare ad-hoc landing strips? Something like the stormer can be fitted with the CTWS gun, plus a modern turret, plus have space for additional equipment and personnel, is resistant to 14.5mm rounds, but still weigh in at ~13 tonnes.
 

Grim901

New Member
There are other vehicles which provide versatility, without requiring a massive amount of logistics support to achieve similar levels of battlefield mobility to the scimitar.
For example, BAE's Stormer:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product964.html?PHPSESSID=fa448a11cce0cf063cbceff517c6bdfe
I fully take your point that the Scimitar is too old, and too small. The Household Cavalry are based in my home town, and I've looked around their kit a few times.
However, why tie-up the RAF's precious 6 C-17s, plus the specialist troops required to prepare ad-hoc landing strips? Something like the stormer can be fitted with the CTWS gun, plus a modern turret, plus have space for additional equipment and personnel, is resistant to 14.5mm rounds, but still weigh in at ~13 tonnes.
I was literally just reading about the Stormer when you mentioned it. It sounds like a good vehicle but I think it'll suffer from the same lack of armour needed for the current campaign.

I found an article involving a Scimitar's crew dying here:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/death-or-glory.htm

It's a long article and there are 3 other parts, but the bit with the Scimitar in is from about halfway down until the end of the page. It got hit by a hell of a lot of explosive.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
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.

Hopefully the powers that be will be wise enough to select a chassis with a limited amphib capability similar to Viking. I understand the Commando Brigade is looking at introducing an armoured recce element to compliment Viking, instead of relying on the Household or similar light cav reg all the time.

The recent purchase of the ST articulated vehicle over Viking MKII was an Army decision not a Marine one, they would have preferred Viking II. The reason being the original Viking was designed like a 'Russian Doll', Marine fits in Viking, Viking fits in Bulwark, Bulwark fits in ARG.
 

Firn

Active Member
What is happening to the FRES progam? Killed by the Budget crisis?

BTW, I recently found the statement why the MRAV Boxer was considered to not be suited and that a "FCS alike" would be needed. Kind of ironic with our hindsight.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): We regularly re-visit existing plans for capability enhancements to ensure they remain tailored to the security environment in which we need to operate. As such, we judge that the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) is not ideally suited to the type of operations envisaged under the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter and other developing policy work. This, coupled with recent operational experience in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and latterly Iraq, has demonstrated the need for rapid deployability in expeditionary operations. MRAV is not considered able to meet this capability requirement which will be pursued through the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES). FRES will be a very significant component of the long-term transformation of the land battle through its contribution to network-enabled capability. We have written to the German and Dutch Governments to inform them of our decision to withdraw from the MRAV collaborative project.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
The wheeled FRES programme is dead in the water. Like the US FCS programme, A-Stan, Iraq and the current credit crunch have forced the military planners to think again and make some hard decisions. The UK's priority will be to continue buying more wheeled MRAP vehicles (Mastiff, Ridgeback et al), focus on the Warrior AFV upgrade and incorporate the new 40mm turret in a suitable tracked recce chassis for the Scimitar / Stormer replacement.

Talk coming out of the UK is that money is going to be spent increasing and expanding SF related capabilities. Which could see both SAS & SBS units gaining another Squadron each and include the buying of more supporting gucci assets (UAV's, Helo's etc.). I understand the UK/US are looking in detail at dovetailing their respective forces more closely. Both countries have re-written thier training manuals as a result of recent lessons learnt, the new programmes are only just being rolled out.

I have no doubt that FRES (apart from Recce) and the A400 will be cancelled. The latter can be ditched in favour of more C130/C17's without incurring any penalty clauses.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top