CVR(T) production to be re-started

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Salvador, May 2, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just seen this on Janes Defence Weekly

    *CVR(T) family to re-enter production for British Army
    Negotiations are under way between the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and BAE Systems to restart production of hulls for the British Army's Combat Vehicle...


    I am staggered, surely re-starting the Stormer production line would have made more sense and even that is an act of desparation.
  2. As the site will not allow access to the whole story how can we coment
  3. I am aware of some of the background to this and I can assure you that it makes perfect sense.

    However, OPSEC very firmly applies. Please be cautious about discussions.

  4. Ditto…
  5. Can find no mention on BAE or MOD sites
  6. How much more do you need to know? They are in discussion to start the production of CVR(T) hulls!!! Why would OPSEC apply to this? Its been published on Internet that everyone has access to (OK not the whole story but you only have to pay Janes for the privilage) and what use is that information to anyone. OK so they must be running out of usable hulls how does that help "Terry Taliban" FFS he probably knows that anyway as replacement of the CVR(T) family has been well publicised by the MoD and MSM and they have just awarded a contract for the FRES SV to replace it!!! Or am I missing something?
  7. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    was thinking the same thing Salvador, finding it difficult to see the opsec aspect given it has been reported by the media
  8. In absence of details, I'll stick my neck out and say if this is happening, it's because while the FRES recon contract provides a vehicle that can do recon safely, it can't be used for the niche airmobile armour role (short of using a C-17). As a result, the need for an (updated) CVR(T) still stands.
  9. Having worked on CVR/T for the best part of 15 years, as an end user, I'm pleased that they've decided not to ditch it in favour of something bigger. I get the concept of a bigger, safer recce vehicle, but the air mobile capability of CVR/T is/was something that should be maintained.
  10. Parapauk I don't know but wouldn't think it was for any new derivative of the CVR(T) but I could be wrong. I think its probably a simple case of they are running out of useable hulls and the replacement FRES SV aka ASCOD2 or ASCOD SV is some years away and they need to plug the supply gap!!!
  11. Who mentioned OPSEC, I always thought the CVR was a shite hot piece of kit I just wanted to see the info on what sort of upgrade it would be getting, as with the 432, the CVR with up to date fixtures and fittings should be a great air portable assett
  12. Given that BAe lost out to GD recently, it was inevitable that they would get some sort of sweetner.
  13. udipur

    udipur LE Book Reviewer

    As long as they kit the bugger out with some decent 'old fashioned' weaponry as opposed to that shocking piece of nightmares they dropped in circa '95.
  14. Replacement of hulls and increased capability.

    It is the capability part to which OPSEC applies, and it would be wrong to discuss the exact details in this forum until MoD decides just how much it is going to reveal.
  15. So - part of the FRES capability is going to be based on a 50 year old, flat bottomed, aluminium alloy armoured chassis?

    Let's hope that all our future enemies forget what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the world and get all their tactics from GENFORCE.

    It might be mobile and air-portable, that's because if you explode anything underneath it the whole thing will open up like baked bean can being thrown on a fire.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but surely the brains in the armour world can use the experience of the last 9 years to produce something a bit more appropriate for the modern battlefield.