ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Flot_gear

Does rather wed us to the A400...

Ever thought that that was a deliberate ploy?

Can't make a sound military, operational or financial case for the A400 purchase - it's a political decision and a chance to bankrole BAe AGAIN!

You're a bit cynical aren't you?! :D

Would not entirely surpise me. They may have been other sound reasons behind it (like there were behind GW2 ) and what little I did know about it I have forgoten over the last few years.

I remember a visit to Airbus/BAe whatever it was then a few years back, one of their suits was telling us that A400 would be different to other projects - it WILL be on time he boasted. This amused me since it was a tacit admission that they had f**ked up all that had gone before, not far wong then for once! He claimed they would have the thing operational in service in 2008 IIRC; I wouldn't have minded, you are unlikely to say 'yup, its bound to be late' but over five minutes was devoted to banging the drum about being on time and budget... who can possibly believe them? Oh, yeah, I forgot...

Originally Posted by Flot_gear

The transport requirement for FRES into C130 is a classic example of changing requirements... The max permissible ramp pin loading limited the AUW of FRES in some configurations (but not all, a viking type veh for example would get around the problem) After some time someone decided A400M would be sufficient so C130 requirement dropped... redesign!

Does rather wed us to the A400... not being too aware of the differences but I cant help thinking a shed load of C17 wouldn't be better.

One problem with projects is the sales pitch which enevitably includes fancy computer systems and technology which, in reality, fall into the 'nice to have' catagory. MoD get a hard-on, BAe or whoever see another profit making exercise whilst the engineers cringe... more computers = more volume to armour. More computers = greater heat loading to dissapate = even more volume Under Armour... all = more weight or reduced / compromised protection... and longer more expensive procurement for what should be a relativly simple bit of kit.

Keep it simple and effective. Buy more of them (attrition and training in the UK during 2x wars +) and sooner. Because they are cheaper you can afford a quicker life cycle to replace them sooner... and so they don't need to be so future proofed and you also avoid having knackered kit and you get the stuff when it's needed. You also don't hemmorage much needed cash to BAe etc.

RM managed it with Viking.

The original requirement for FRES/Med capability was NOT C-130. A certain Para General decided that late on and it meant that the UK came out of the MRAV/Boxer (of Trials of Truth fame) development.

Design engineers of much every firm and those realists in the military knew that if you are to carry an Inf sect with all the kit that is required these days you needed a volume far greater than any appropriately armoured vehicle capable of fitting inside a C-130. Don't use "the US did it with Striker" argument to try and counter that point because if you do, I'll point you towards the difference in weight carraige allowance between RAF and US C-130 ac and the far fewer flights the extra weight means in ac life - something we can't afford to do.

As to Viking, it is great for what it was designed for and has marvelous x country mob. BUT, please note that it has lost much (all?) of its amphibious capability as it reequired to up armour for its current deployment. Note also that it is a troop carrier and not designed to get into the fight as a matter of course - something that FRES needs to do.

Finally, to your cheap, cheerful and quick turnover comment. With a ever smaller army, we need technology to give us the edge over a future enemy. Frankly a metal box is a metal box, it is the internal equipment and technology that gives you the edge over a like vehicle. That is what the drive for NEC is all about. I will admit that I have sympathy with your view - sadly the Treasury doesn't. Equipment we buy needs to last, has to last, must last as we won't get more cash to buy a replacement. See how long 430, CVR(T), WR and CR have and will be expected to last. Whatever we buy we must ensure it is good enough to be able to stretch at least 30 years.

Originally Posted by in_the_cheapseats

The original requirement for FRES/Med capability was NOT C-130. A certain Para General decided that late on and it meant that the UK came out of the MRAV/Boxer (of Trials of Truth fame) development.

Design engineers of much every firm and those realists in the military knew that if you are to carry an Inf sect with all the kit that is required these days you needed a volume far greater than any appropriately armoured vehicle capable of fitting inside a C-130. Don't use "the US did it with Striker" argument to try and counter that point because if you do, I'll point you towards the difference in weight carraige allowance between RAF and US C-130 ac and the far fewer flights the extra weight means in ac life - something we can't afford to do.

As to Viking, it is great for what it was designed for and has marvelous x country mob. BUT, please note that it has lost much (all?) of its amphibious capability as it reequired to up armour for its current deployment. Note also that it is a troop carrier and not designed to get into the fight as a matter of course - something that FRES needs to do.

Finally, to your cheap, cheerful and quick turnover comment. With a ever smaller army, we need technology to give us the edge over a future enemy. Frankly a metal box is a metal box, it is the internal equipment and technology that gives you the edge over a like vehicle. That is what the drive for NEC is all about. I will admit that I have sympathy with your view - sadly the Treasury doesn't. Equipment we buy needs to last, has to last, must last as we won't get more cash to buy a replacement. See how long 430, CVR(T), WR and CR have and will be expected to last. Whatever we buy we must ensure it is good enough to be able to stretch at least 30 years.

I wasn't aware that the C130 requirement came in later... even more typical of the kind of delays brought about by moving goalposts. I accept that to try and get FRES effectivly armoured and C130 portable is a tall / impossible order, although with less fancy kit inside it would be more achieveable.

Viking - I was not advoacating it as a candidate, as you say, it is a troop-carrier less suited to the FRES role. Nonetheless, it does illustrate a vehicle program that didn't take particularly long, had continuity of mil members in the design team IIRC and hasn't cost a fortune.

I never knew an enormous amount when I was more involved a couple of years ago and know much less now but I cant help wondering that FRES is going to be close to the base weight of WR if it's to provide sufficient protection for an Inf section. I can't see a vehicle without largely effective armour against RPG and smaller IED being of great use; if the newer types of armour recently tested are developed and employed then it stands a chance but otherwise I wonder what we really stand to gain over and above current vehicles.

With regard to technology - if it's in the form of lower areal density armour or something which reduces ballistic windows or improves survivability or mobility then great. Comms are very important but theres Bowman for that already, it just needs shoehorning in and feeding with power. NEC giving us the technological edge that's essential due to our small size? Hmmmm.... I have not seen all that NEC has to offer and my working knowlege of gound ops is limited. I appreciate that increased SA will enhance ops but where do you stop? Bandwidth is an issue anyway, as is 'sensor fusion' and all the other stuff. Few people seem to be able to really explain how NEC is going to come to fruition in each of the areas of the battlefield that it will supposedly be employed. I do not doubt that one day we will see it in some guise or other, it may even be revolutionary. Nevertheless, for the present I think NEC has become a fig-leaf for the treasury and MoD to cover reductions in equipment and men citting NEC as the technology that will enable us to visit 'effects' on the enemy with a much smaller force.

Our Army as it stands is not heavily reliant on technology on the ground, at least not in terms of each and every vehicle. Yes there's Bowman, ECM etc but theres nothing fancy. Nonetheless, the British Forces are arguably the best around. Why? Training, tactics and the quality of the Toms; fundamentaly its the latter. The yanks have all sorts of gucci kit but it is generaly accepted that man for man we are superior, despite our simple equipment. Ageing, fatigued and out-of date equipment are problems throughout the forces so it is right that this is addressed and quicker than it is at the moment. Unfortunatly we have a greater problem, manpower and morale.

A smaller Army needs higher-tech equipment? I propose that the above suggests otherwise for our current size... unless you suggest that we maintain the current capability with high tech kit but with a reduced manpower? Technology can only do so much, however numbers have a quality all of their own.

More expensive vehicles means fewer vehicles. At the moment we are running out of vehicles as it is due to attrition and fatigue as well as the high number deployed... More vehicles allow for some in UK for pre-deployment training (a very good idea) a reserve for when the poo hits the fan and allows rotation of vehicles through operational theatres. FRES might indeed need to survive 30 years but if it spends 30 years of its life on continuous ops because we haven't a sufficeintly large pool to rotate through then I would bet that hull fatigue becomes a major problem.

It's not that I am against advances in technology, rather that I fear the emphasis is too heavily upon it at the moment. The arms salesmen are doing very well but sadly we are neglecting those who really matter.

Why have we a smaller Army? Because we shed Bn to save money whilst we forge ahead with technology intensive equipment; because the Govt / MoD are oblivious to our greatest assets voting with their feet. Critical mass has, IMHO been reached already for this op tempo. We can not afford to be any smaller. I appreciate your grounding in reality with respect to the required longevity of FRES but, short of recieving much needed cash, the MoD needs to cut it's cloth accordingly, IMHO that means replacing equipment but limiting the gucci NEC and other amazing gear and concentrating on the men and women; to do otherwise is very dangerous indeed.

Regards,

FG

Originally Posted by john197014

Are there vehicles already in production that we could buy "Off The Shelf"
for what we would need?

I suppose we could ask Vladimir to flog us some BMD-4s!

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Themanwho

Ah, you say that now...

But in twenty years' time when the 23rd Chinese Shock Army is parked on the Pas de Calais, and all there is to stop them is an armoured car on the chunnel tracks and some homeguard armed with cadet rifles, the cry will be "why did we not buy a proper replacement for CR2 and Warrior?"

Oh deary, deary me! Are you on the sauce already this fine Saturday morning?

Read my words again. I stated quite emphatically that we need a replacement AFV now. Now, go and do a little research and explain just how the 'original' concept-FRES was going to be "a proper replacement for CR2 and Warrior".

And secondly, my personal opinion is that we should be aquiring an AFV that is designed to meet the current environment and that which we are likely to face in the next 10 years. Then maybe the boys on the front-line will get some decent kit and the taxpayer will get value-for-money. Far better than throwing good money at a fantasy, don't you think?

Ooh, get you. Sneering is bad for your complexion, you know.

My fantasian enemy was there to (light-heartedly) illustrate the potential danger of your original statement :

"If FRES is more specifically some hair-brained concept vehicle that assumes any future enemy is going to kindly engage in stand-off heavy armour conventional warfare, then no, it is not necessary."

Who's to say what the threat will be in twenty years' time? In Dec 87, would you really have expected to have HM Forces up to their armpits in two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? I imagine that like me your hindsight is far superior to your foresight. I certainly have no idea if 2027 will be the year that we are engaged in stand-off heavy armour conventional warfare, and I assume neither have you.

And whilst MoD can't afford to throw money at the problem like the US DoD, wouldn't it make sense to plan for the worst eventuality?

By the way I have no need to explain just how the 'original' concept-FRES was going to be a proper replacement for CR2 and Warrior, as I never claimed it was. And don't be so snippy.

Viking has been involved in heavy fighting in Afghanistan. It can fit into a C130, and be underslung beneath a Chinook, or if split into two, underneath a Merlin!

It might not be as swept up as some of the FRES ideas but it is available now! Buy it as a stop gap and then as the air mobile element of FRES, thus allowing the rest of FRES to be heavily armoured beasts if that is what you want.

This idea has the following benefits:

Great bit of kit.
Cheap.
Proven technology.
No procurement risks, and quick production.
And it has air conditioning, perfect for places we are at the mo!

I've just spent an exciting hour trying to find out what FRES is supposed to do. Not an easy task since it appears that there is some confusion, which is always a good sign. However, I did find the Defence Committe's report on the FRES saga at http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/159/159.pdf

And is appears that the 4 core requirenments of all 16 variants are on page 13 and are Survivability, Deployability, Network enabled capability, and Through Life upgrade potential.

Now, it seems to me that three of the requirements can be met and imporoved on through the requirement to be upgradable during the operational lifespan of the vehicle. So, why are we aiming to invent new technologies now and stick them in an as yet undefined hull? The Bowman Data network is frankly pants, at the moment, so why worry about waiting for that to work. There are known armour add-ons available now so why wait for new armour technologies that might not be up to scratch? Reading the articles on Electric armour suggests that the system is an add on currently. How longer would we have to wait before the system is developed as a complete package in a hull protecting against all threats?
No one is going to crack the Plasma cannon, battlefield laser or Mass driver in the next few years so we can safely pick a range of weapons available now. The range of ISTAR equipment on the market now is fairly comprehesive so I can't see a problem of flicking open Janes and doing some shopping.
To be honest, I increasingly think that MoD has no real idea of what the requiremenst are, since they seem unable or unwilling to make any actual solid choices that really buy a solid object. All I can see is more "kick it into the long grass" moves

Originally Posted by Themanwho

Ooh, get you. Sneering is bad for your complexion, you know.

My complexion went AWOL years ago, so a little sneer is neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Themanwho

My fantasian enemy was there to (light-heartedly) illustrate the potential danger of your original statement :

Which is why I also chose to highlight the danger of your statement in a similarly light-hearted manner.



You are right about the hindsight/foresight conundrum. But let's apply a little hindsight and commonsense to our foresight planning.

Which do you propose, given the limited budget that you rightly conclude: equipping the military to fight the battles we are sending them to now; or equipping them to fight a hypothetical future enemy?

My answer is we should put the majority of resoures into the former and simply retain a 'cadre' formation of the latter which can be expanded as and when required.

Originally Posted by Themanwho

By the way I have no need to explain just how the 'original' concept-FRES was going to be a proper replacement for CR2 and Warrior, as I never claimed it was.

Given that FRES was/is not meant as a Warrior/CR2 replacement, I was left a little confused as to why you should introduce these two vehicles into your banter - to (seemingly) argue for the FRES purchase. Whether we get FRES, son of FRES, or some other vehicle(s), there will still be W/CR2 hanging around in 20 years time for the mythical PLA force encamped at Calais.