FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

...ah, but: new ammunition versus existing; new support chain versus existing; new training package versus existing.

Ever get the feeling that some of this stuff is a little cut-and-paste? :-D
An existing round that is progressively going out of service as the Warrior is upgraded. The training bill for a RARDEN in anything other than a Warrior or Scimitar turret would be comparable to starting with a clean slate. If the new 40mm CT gun and associated optics could be mounted in a RWS that would work on a FENNEK like recce vehicle with out major loss in mobility and ISTAR capability it would meet both capability and sustainment outputs.
 
An existing round that is progressively going out of service as the Warrior is upgraded. The training bill for a RARDEN in anything other than a Warrior or Scimitar turret would be comparable to starting with a clean slate. If the new 40mm CT gun and associated optics could be mounted in a RWS that would work on a FENNEK like recce vehicle with out major loss in mobility and ISTAR capability it would meet both capability and sustainment outputs.

No!

40CTA was a ‘solution’ To the too small turrets on ours and Frog MICVs.

@ 30mm CROWs is the solution, unless you need somewhere for dashing chaps to stand stiffly at attention during parades.

Were fitting 40CTA because we’ve got it avd it cost a fortune to develop it, not because it’s the right answer to anything. There’s a reason why everyone other than the two countries that developed it are stiffly ignoring it.
 
More importantly will it be in service with the Irish Army?

If not why not?

You depend on the UK to provide Air defence, QRA etc. By proxy you are protected by our CASD, all this for free, yet your PM acts like we are the bad guys.

Let’s be honest and open about capabilities?

What does the republic is Southern Ireland bring to the table?
In the context of this thread,

CVR(T) was in service in the Irish Army in the form of Scorpion.

As was the AML90 and AML60.

These were replaced by 2 versions of the MOWAG Piranha III, one with a 30mm and the other with a RWS (40mm AGL or HMG). These all carry small recce teams.

They were supplemented by LTAVs in the form of RG32M LTVs with 40mm AGL or HMG.
 
An existing round that is progressively going out of service as the Warrior is upgraded. The training bill for a RARDEN in anything other than a Warrior or Scimitar turret would be comparable to starting with a clean slate. If the new 40mm CT gun and associated optics could be mounted in a RWS that would work on a FENNEK like recce vehicle with out major loss in mobility and ISTAR capability it would meet both capability and sustainment outputs.
I was being facetious.
 
No!

40CTA was a ‘solution’ To the too small turrets on ours and Frog MICVs.

@ 30mm CROWs is the solution, unless you need somewhere for dashing chaps to stand stiffly at attention during parades.

Were fitting 40CTA because we’ve got it avd it cost a fortune to develop it, not because it’s the right answer to anything. There’s a reason why everyone other than the two countries that developed it are stiffly ignoring it.
But at the end of the day the U.K. is one of those 2 countries that are developing and feeding it.

The U.K. is putting it currently on 2 vehicle types. Your Scimitar replacement (Ajax) and your upgraded Warrior.

If you want to add 30mm that’s fine but it will increase costs and complexity.
 
Had a good gander at the new Canadian recce vehicle this weekend, the TAP-V. I think you guys are getting the better deal with Ajax.

Yes, it's that questionable.
 
More importantly will it be in service with the Irish Army?

If not why not?

You depend on the UK to provide Air defence, QRA etc. By proxy you are protected by our CASD, all this for free, yet your PM acts like we are the bad guys.

Let’s be honest and open about capabilities?

What does the republic is Southern Ireland bring to the table?
in a word Guiness
The Irish army have a good rep as peace keepers, thats good enough.
 
Had a good gander at the new Canadian recce vehicle this weekend, the TAP-V. I think you guys are getting the better deal with Ajax.

Yes, it's that questionable.
I was in Canada last year at Gagetown and saw them. Got to wonder about a Recce wagon that a LAV can practically can hide behind. Spoke to some 3RCR guys how described it as another lemon forced upon them by their MOD equivalent and Govt, "Buy Canadian made, whether its wanted it or not, and if it works or doesn't"
 
Last edited:
But at the end of the day the U.K. is one of those 2 countries that are developing and feeding it.

The U.K. is putting it currently on 2 vehicle types. Your Scimitar replacement (Ajax) and your upgraded Warrior.

If you want to add 30mm that’s fine but it will increase costs and complexity.

30mm bushmaster was the ‘right’ answer. We already had a fully developed logistics and support train for it.
Now? We’ve replaced the orphan RARDEN with the even more orphan 40CTA that’s been a commercial flop.
Were fitting 40CTA to Ajax because were fitting it to Warrior.
And were fitting it to Warrior because we’d designed the thing with too small a turret and turret ring.

Designing a gun to circumvent a very bad design decision gets you 40CTA. Everyone else has looked at its multiple design comprises and eye waveringly expensive ammunition and walked away laughing,
 
I was in Canada last year at Gagetown and saw them. Got to wonder about a Recce wagon that a LAV can practically can hide behind. Spoke to some 3RCR guys how described it as another lemon forced upon them by their MOD equivalent and Govt, "Buy Canadian made, whether its wanted it or not, and if it works or doesn't"
The TAPV was designed and made in the US, specifically at Textron's plant in Louisiana, and is based on a further development of the US M1117. Whoever told you the TAPV was Canadian made was very ill-informed.

The decision was very controversial at the time (2012), as most people appeared to feel that something based on an LAV chassis would have made more sense, especially as one of the vehicles being replace was the Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle, which was based on an older version of the LAV (the RG-31 was the other vehicle the TAPV was replacing).

The contract was awarded in 2012 and since then the TAPV has been very late and has underperformed, having problems with suspension, steering, and rolling over, as well as vehicle fires. It is about as big and heavy as an LAV III on the outside while still managing to have no room on the inside. There are two versions of it, reconnaissance and utility. Textron provides the long term support of the vehicle under a fixed price based on usage.

As I recall it at the time, the decision came as a big head scratcher as it seemed to make little sense and no justification was given for the choice. The suspicion in some quarters is that the government of the day were still reeling from scandals involving the F-35 and couldn't afford more defence procurement related bad publicity and so thought "let's just buy something off the shelf from the US, that should be the safe choice, shouldn't it?" And the rest as they say, is history.

Information about it in the press that I have seen has been uniformly negative.



 
And were fitting it to Warrior because we’d designed the thing with too small a turret and turret ring.

Designing a gun to circumvent a very bad design decision gets you 40CTA. Everyone else has looked at its multiple design comprises and eye waveringly expensive ammunition and walked away laughing,
Why must you spoil a halfway decent point with wrongness?
 
Really? The outboard gun and it’s stupidly complex feed is to avoid the reality, the turrets far too small to mount a proper gun.
If ‘a proper gun’ is the 30mm bushmaster, and it can’t fit, then how did three out of four companies manage to offer it on a Warrior in the original competition?
 
The TAPV was designed and made in the US, specifically at Textron's plant in Louisiana, and is based on a further development of the US M1117. Whoever told you the TAPV was Canadian made was very ill-informed.
Yes it is largely built off the US designed base but a lot of components are Canadian made, drive line parts, armor/ballistic protection, A/C, RWS among others, with the prime contractor being Textron Canada.
 
If ‘a proper gun’ is the 30mm bushmaster, and it can’t fit, then how did three out of four companies manage to offer it on a Warrior in the original competition?

Because the original ‘winner’ was to use the existing Warrior turret as the basis for the Warrior/FRES turret with 40CTA to ‘save money’.
As is always the way, up the road, reality but and an all new turret has to be designed,
The story of MoD time after time, downsekect cheap and don’t get the right system, end up going back to the drawing board and the ‘expensive’ losing designs turn out to actually have been cheaper.
 
Because the original ‘winner’ was to use the existing Warrior turret as the basis for the Warrior/FRES turret with 40CTA to ‘save money’.
As is always the way, up the road, reality but and an all new turret has to be designed,
The story of MoD time after time, downsekect cheap and don’t get the right system, end up going back to the drawing board and the ‘expensive’ losing designs turn out to actually have been cheaper.
What are you gibbering about?
Four companies bid for Warrior LIP, three with MK44s, one with CT40. The CT40 was then mandated. Two companies bid for that, while the other two pulled out. The winner was the one who had previously offered the Bushmaster.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top