BAE Systems MRAP

#1
Article in the Torygraph Business Section today;-

Quote....

"BAE Systems has won another order from the US Military for its mine resistant vehicles, increasingly deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, to protect troops from roadside bombs. The company is to provide a further 600 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to the US Marine Corps in a deal worthabout $322m, (£161m). The vehicles are also used by the military in Canada and U.A.R., and BAE is thought to be close to striking an important deal to supply them to one of the new NATO countries in eastern Europe, where the company thinksthe maeket is potentially huge. The deal could be announced as early as this week. BAE is also targetting India for possible orders."

Ends.

There is also a photo of the beast which makes it look like it may be a useful bit of kit. (Sorry, I can't post a link, being a computer numpty).

Has anyone any knowledge on this vehicle, and if so, is it as good as it looks?
........And if it is any good, why are our people not getting them, or are they?
 
#3
Hello Hassle,

this appears to be the BAE Systems RG33,if it has beaten significant competition for that order then it must be pretty good:

http://www.baesystemspresskit.com/ausa2007/RG_33_Series.cfm

I find it interesting that the Secretary of State for Defense considers the idea of designing a vehicle specifically for the Future Rapid Effects System (F.R.E.S.) requirement to be an outrageous extravagance.
While a many defence contractors can make healthy profits selling vehicles custom designed for the mine protected role.
If it was too expensive for the government to design a vehicle for the massive F.R.E.S. project then how could it be cost effective for private contractors to develop vehicles in the hope of winning an order?
Or has the government simply take the General Dynamics sales pitch at face value?

tangosix.
 
#4
BAE are actually ranked third for orders in this sector. Link.
 
#5
There is a difference between winning the orders and being the best for the job.

Compare the track records and you'll find the RG has a better, proven history.... And also why would the septics buy more foreign kit than they really have too.
 
#9
Sort of related; 140 More Mastiffs for the UK.

Interesting comment at that link-or maybe you don't think so-by Richard North whoever he is.
"Returning to the issue of funding, followers of this blog will know that the original order for Mastiffs was imposed over the heads of the Army brass. They were totally opposed to buying in equipment for what they saw was a short-term need, in case it prejudiced funding for their "future army" plans, and in particular, FRES. Then, it was only on the understanding that the purchase was funded through an Urgent Operational Requirement – and thus paid-for by the Treasury – that they were prepared to accept the vehicles.

That the Army is now prepared to fund the new batch itself thus reflects a new realism that current operations must be properly equipped – with dedicated rather than general-purpose kit – and that the funding must come from the mainstream equipment budget.

This in turn represents a hard battle fought and won within the defence establishment about the relative importance of the "future army" and a reigning-in of the "futuritis" which afflicts defence planning…. But the strange thing is that, for all the fluff, indignation and politicking that we saw in yesterday's debate, barely a single MP in the House even realised that the battle had been fought, much less won. The MPs are not so much "above the debate" as unaware even that it is happening."
 

Latest Threads

Top