FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

How do you know we're not going to use the modularity? In five years, say you got your wish for a twin linked 57mm gattling cannon turret, and it became viable. Just pop off the current body, and stick in the new one. All we'd need to do is buy new bodies.


It literally allows through life upgrades and replacements. Making the "Upgrade it later, when we have more cash" approach more likely. Or we UOR something, in it goes.

Hell, It'd likely be worth buying a few extra chassis now while they're cheap, just while the costs are low.


Errrr era 1970's chassis...? Why don't we just stretch the wheelbase on a Saracen then? Its about the same technology level.
more for example you find in 5 years time (as the rest of the world has already) that a 40mm AGL/7.62mm doesn’t cut it..... you don’t have to buy a whole new vehicle just a new module.


There is even an existing design for a 30mm armed IFV that can carry 3 crew plus 6 infantry
 
more for example you find in 5 years time (as the rest of the world has already) that a 40mm AGL/7.62mm doesn’t cut it..... you don’t have to buy a whole new vehicle just a new module.


There is even an existing design for a 30mm armed IFV that can carry 3 crew plus 6 infantry
The 155mm AGM would be quite useful.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
To add fuel to the fire snatch was an uparmoured piglet which was an improvement over macralon
 
These additional/ alternative Boxer modules: what's the plan for deploying them? If, for example, you want to deploy APCs but include options for variants, isn't it simpler to buy more Boxer chassis rather than lug around spare modules on trucks and also need a crane to swap them?
 
How do you know we're not going to use the modularity? In five years, say you got your wish for a twin linked 57mm gattling cannon turret, and it became viable. Just pop off the current body, and stick in the new one. All we'd need to do is buy new bodies.


It literally allows through life upgrades and replacements. Making the "Upgrade it later, when we have more cash" approach more likely. Or we UOR something, in it goes.

Hell, It'd likely be worth buying a few extra chassis now while they're cheap, just while the costs are low.


Errrr era 1970's chassis...? Why don't we just stretch the wheelbase on a Saracen then? Its about the same technology level.
I don't know how much the modularity would end up being used on a practical basis, but it does theoretically allow for a different balance of vehicle types to be used depending upon the type of deployment, with the modules being purchased as you said on a UOR basis.

More practically I think it will allow specialist modules to be developed and made by third parties later on in the life cycle, with vehicle integration going through well defined interfaces. If for example you happen to like the ambulance module which someone else has made and want to buy it, you can just buy their module and drop it in place instead of them doing a custom retro-fit of your vehicles in their factory. This is more of a consideration when there are multiple manufacturers of the vehicle rather than just one.

With regards to Pirahna, the current vehicle as used by countries such as Canada is radically different from the 1970s version. It's gone through at least two (or arguably three) generational changes since the early models. It's like saying a 2019 Mercedes car is the same as a 1970s Mercedes car just because they both have the Mercedes logo on the hood.
 
These additional/ alternative Boxer modules: what's the plan for deploying them? If, for example, you want to deploy APCs but include options for variants, isn't it simpler to buy more Boxer chassis rather than lug around spare modules on trucks and also need a crane to swap them?
If you ever end up swapping modules it's more likely to be something you do prior to deployment. For example for Afghanistan you might want more infantry modules instead of air defence modules, while for the Baltics you might want the air defence modules. You would likely make that decision and change before you left the UK though.
 
If you ever end up swapping modules it's more likely to be something you do prior to deployment. For example for Afghanistan you might want more infantry modules instead of air defence modules, while for the Baltics you might want the air defence modules. You would likely make that decision and change before you left the UK though.
That assumes a degree of forethought and planning, evidence of which is lacking in the British army.
What about taking spare modules on deployment, to replace any " damaged" by unfriendly natives?
 
To add fuel to the fire snatch was an uparmoured piglet which was an improvement over macralon
Not quite - it was an uparmoured APV I think...
 
Macralon was Brilliant

That curved belly plate was the absolute dogs as a preformed wind break for those manning the traps on a clay shoot
It only needed a spanner to remove too.

Or a bit of HME...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
We don't do upgrade it when we have cash… the path to the gas axe is littered with fitted for but not with systems that cost over the odds in the s=assurance the bells and whistles would follow.

Pirahna V is very bang up to date.

And Boxer isn't up to date? Why are you being contrary seemingly for the sake of it?

You're condemning to the scrapyard a system that we haven'y even acquired yet - having already noted that it's a very good modular platform.

I get the feeling that if we'd gone for the Piranha V, you'd have been arguing that we should have got the Boxer - "because it's modular, you know... easier to upgrade, more flexible, blah, blah".

We're getting a damn good platform. Note: platform. Let's start there and see how we go on, eh?
 
(...) What about taking spare modules on deployment, to replace any " damaged" by unfriendly natives?
If the damage is due to a mine of some sort, then it would in most cases be the vehicle which will be the most damaged, with the module possibly receiving secondary damage. If it is damage from a missile or RPG, then it could be either the vehicle or the module which is damaged.

I suppose though that if you have a damaged vehicle and an undamaged module, and you put a higher priority on having that module type in operation, you could swap the module onto another working vehicle whose module you have less urgent need of.

It's also possible that if certain types of module see more use than others, you might swap the modules around now and again to keep them in service while the vehicle gets a major overhaul or possibly just to equalise the running hours and wear and tear on the vehicle fleet as a whole.

All of this flexibility comes at a cost however, both in terms of money and in terms of how much of the vehicle volume and weight budget is consumed by the features needed for modularity.

If the modularity turns out to be of overall benefit, then I suspect that as I said previously it will most likely be the additional flexibility of being able to more easily go to third parties for new types of modules later in life and know that vehicle integration should be more or less "drop in" once initial testing is complete.
 
If the damage is due to a mine of some sort, then it would in most cases be the vehicle which will be the most damaged, with the module possibly receiving secondary damage. If it is damage from a missile or RPG, then it could be either the vehicle or the module which is damaged.

I suppose though that if you have a damaged vehicle and an undamaged module, and you put a higher priority on having that module type in operation, you could swap the module onto another working vehicle whose module you have less urgent need of.

It's also possible that if certain types of module see more use than others, you might swap the modules around now and again to keep them in service while the vehicle gets a major overhaul or possibly just to equalise the running hours and wear and tear on the vehicle fleet as a whole.

All of this flexibility comes at a cost however, both in terms of money and in terms of how much of the vehicle volume and weight budget is consumed by the features needed for modularity.

If the modularity turns out to be of overall benefit, then I suspect that as I said previously it will most likely be the additional flexibility of being able to more easily go to third parties for new types of modules later in life and know that vehicle integration should be more or less "drop in" once initial testing is complete.
Has any testing been done yet on the speed of changing modules in the field?
I'm thinking in regard to rushing a battlegroup from UK to the Baltics, where a poor choice in modules ( without taking along alternatives/ spare ones) is going to leave the strike unit rather stuck?
Thunderbird 2 had several pods/ modules, but turning up with the wrong one wasn't an option.
 

cookie65

Old-Salt
Has any testing been done yet on the speed of changing modules in the field?U
I'm thinking in regard to rushing a battlegroup from UK to the Baltics, where a poor choice in modules ( without taking along alternatives/ spare ones) is going to leave the strike unit rather stuck?
Thunderbird 2 had several pods/ modules, but turning up with the wrong one wasn't an option.
Less than 30 minutes.

Change video
 
Has any testing been done yet on the speed of changing modules in the field?
I'm thinking in regard to rushing a battlegroup from UK to the Baltics, where a poor choice in modules ( without taking along alternatives/ spare ones) is going to leave the strike unit rather stuck?
Thunderbird 2 had several pods/ modules, but turning up with the wrong one wasn't an option.
Is there a bratty wagon module ??
 

Latest Threads

Top