British Army to receive 50 Panthers by 2007 ... but why?

#1
British Army to receive 50 Panthers by 2007

BAE Systems Land Systems has confirmed that it will deliver 50 production Panther Command and Liaison Vehicles (CLVs) to the British Army by January 2007, in order to meet the army's required in-service date (ISD).


The UK Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) selected the Panther following tests involving five competing 4 x 4 vehicles submitted by three contractors, with the GBP140 million (USD245.7 million) production contract finally being awarded late in 2003. An order for 401 units was subsequently placed with integration of the vehicles to start in mid-2006.
But at a cost of £413,000 ($721,000) EACH, are these really the best for the job? Especially when there's a MUCH cheaper armoured Land Rover available (Defender DAS).

Perhaps all is not as it seems ...

A dark and murky tale
With its announcement in July 2003 of the "preferred bidder" – and subsequently – the MoD sought to give the impression that the vehicle was British-made. It was only through persistent questioning from Conservative back-bench MP Anne Winterton that it emerged that the vehicle was not only entirely Italian-designed but was also to be manufactured (all bar the roof) by the Italian firm Iveco in Italy.

Not least of our concerns was the extraordinary price of each vehicle, at £413,000 – twice the price of a Rolls Royce limousine – but what particularly aroused our suspicions were the lengths to which the MoD had gone to conceal the European origin of the vehicle. After the award of the contract to supply trucks for the British Army to the German firm MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, this we felt might be more evidence of what appears to be a covert quest by the MoD (at the behest of the Blair government) to achieve European defence integration.
Can people tell me why it's so expensive, and whether they think it's good value for money, considering the limited funds of the British Army? Is the Land Rover really that bad?
 
#2
Had a play (sit in - play with gizmos) with one at ATDU last year, seemed to be a fair bit of kit. Like the bastard offspring of a HMMVW and Rover on steroids. There's lots of clever techie kit, but seems to be little scope for back to basics use if everything fails.

I did like the roof mounted GPMG with commander's aiming screen and joystick control.
"Hey-uh, it's jus' like bein' in a moovie" :lol:

(Edit to add)



The Panther will be fitted with BAE Systems Self-Defence Weapon station (SDW). SDW combines BAE Systems Target Acquisition Weapon Sight (STAWS) with the AEI Enforcer Remote Controlled Weapon Station (RCWS).
From http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/future11.html
 
#4
Far be it from me to cast rumours about oul lords and masters in defence procurement...........however maybe a teeny weeny bit of palm greasing has taken place. The price of one of these vehicles seems to be astronomical in comparison to an armoured version of a L/R.

As Operator said, if something goes t*ts up you are in the smelly stuff very quickly.

I stand ready to be corrected. Out :roll:
 
#5
Doug97 said:
British Army to receive 50 Panthers by 2007

BAE Systems Land Systems has confirmed that it will deliver 50 production Panther Command and Liaison Vehicles (CLVs) to the British Army by January 2007, in order to meet the army's required in-service date (ISD).


The UK Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) selected the Panther following tests involving five competing 4 x 4 vehicles submitted by three contractors, with the GBP140 million (USD245.7 million) production contract finally being awarded late in 2003. An order for 401 units was subsequently placed with integration of the vehicles to start in mid-2006.
But at a cost of £413,000 ($721,000) EACH, are these really the best for the job? Especially when there's a MUCH cheaper armoured Land Rover available (Defender DAS).

Perhaps all is not as it seems ...

A dark and murky tale
With its announcement in July 2003 of the "preferred bidder" – and subsequently – the MoD sought to give the impression that the vehicle was British-made. It was only through persistent questioning from Conservative back-bench MP Anne Winterton that it emerged that the vehicle was not only entirely Italian-designed but was also to be manufactured (all bar the roof) by the Italian firm Iveco in Italy.

Not least of our concerns was the extraordinary price of each vehicle, at £413,000 – twice the price of a Rolls Royce limousine – but what particularly aroused our suspicions were the lengths to which the MoD had gone to conceal the European origin of the vehicle. After the award of the contract to supply trucks for the British Army to the German firm MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, this we felt might be more evidence of what appears to be a covert quest by the MoD (at the behest of the Blair government) to achieve European defence integration.
Can people tell me why it's so expensive, and whether they think it's good value for money, considering the limited funds of the British Army? Is the Land Rover really that bad?
Whether it is the right vehicle or not is not really the point! Again we see corruption and conspiracy in the world of Defence Procurement. The MOD is being used as a pawn to appease America, Europe and a number of Arab states. Sadly we never get anything in return for our efforts (unless you count the kit getting worn out and expensively but badly replaced and soldiers have to work harder to bring it all together).
 
#8
Don't take this as sticking up for the choice of vehicle - frankly I wouldn't know if its great or shite. However any argument should be founded on PANTHER's role as a recce vehicle, effectively to replace CVR(T) in certain roles, not SNATCH; even though it does look like a 'rover on steroids. How much is a CVR(T) worth at today's prices?
 
#9
Using those figures, I make the cost of each vehicle to be £350,000 which is a little cheaper than £413,000! But there may be hidden costs elsewhere.

Please remember that headline figure will include support costs for x years or y,000 miles where x and y are complete guesses of utilisation by the DPA. We will have bought sufficient spares for up to 10 years (or something like that). The company will also be training the drivers and providing the publications and tools; and these costs soon mount up. And the company has to promise to support the vehicle for its in-service life....

We always knew this was an Italian vehicle, but I thought it was going to be built in this country by Alvis.

I agree with the comments about a Jeep on steroids; these things go like hell. They are well armoured and one early concern has been addressed with the provision of the weapon. I hope that the integration of Bowman has been completed. The vehicle in which I travelled was fitted with a GIS system that was very impressive!

I am willing to bet this vehicle quickly becomes one of the most coveted in the fleet!

Litotes
 
#10
Litotes said:
We will have bought sufficient spares for up to 10 years (or something like that). The company will also be training the drivers and providing the publications and tools;



:lol: :lol: :lol:


Believe that when we see it!


Wonder how many Ferrets we could have bought for 350k???
 
#12
labrat said:
Litotes said:
We will have bought sufficient spares for up to 10 years (or something like that). The company will also be training the drivers and providing the publications and tools;



:lol: :lol: :lol:


Believe that when we see it!

Wonder how many Ferrets we could have bought for 350k???
I'm sure they will have enough spares for 10 years. The problem will be some civvi accountant who sees that if you keep all the lightbulbs in one place, all the gearboxes in another, axles at a mass storage and the tyres at a small shed in Wales (St Athan? :p) everything's much cheaper and far easier to keep track of... just a bit of a problem when the bit you need is 500 miles away :p
 
#13
Have to agree with litotes here. Its the whole of life cost that has to be considered and obviously that is never going to be cheap. IMHO it is a big leap up from sending guys out in a L/R. And not before time.
 
#14
It's an Iveco, at best a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday truck, it spends the rest of the time in the workshop being repaired - at least its commercial cousins do !!! Of all the trucks in the world I would invest any money in, the very last would be an Iveco.
 
#15
crabby said:
The problem will be some civvi accountant who sees that if you keep all the lightbulbs in one place, all the gearboxes in another, axles at a mass storage and the tyres at a small shed in Wales (St Athan? :p) everything's much cheaper and far easier to keep track of... just a bit of a problem when the bit you need is 500 miles away :p
No, Crabby, the problem will come when the next but one MGO decides that he has to save loads of money NOW and shuts down Donnington and sells off all the spares therein on Ebay without checking to see if the equipment is still in service. But he will have retired with a gong and will be working for the firm of consultants that completed the study before anyone realises.

Cynical? Moi?

Litotes
 
#19
Stockholm said:
Don't take this as sticking up for the choice of vehicle - frankly I wouldn't know if its great or shite. However any argument should be founded on PANTHER's role as a recce vehicle, effectively to replace CVR(T) in certain roles, not SNATCH; even though it does look like a 'rover on steroids. How much is a CVR(T) worth at today's prices?
The lads at ATDU told me that it's not being bought as a recce vehicle, it's a mobile command and control vehicle. The internal layout, with the command systems for the back-seaters (incl keyboards, monitors, etc) would seem to back this up. The target vehicles to be replaced with it are Sultan and FV-432 command vehicles.

NTM
 
#20
As for British jobs, the Italians not only are NATO/EU allies but buy huge amounts of landrovers, surely where it is made is of no real concern to Arrsers its how good is it. The 'it must be made in blighty to protect such and such's political career' attitude results in things like the SA80 which its taken ten years to put right.
 

Latest Threads