FRES On The Backburner

Discussion in 'RAC' started by Vent_Tube_Tester, Dec 12, 2008.

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. BFBS main story, The Brown Witchproject Government, has put FRES back on the back-burner for who knows how long. Only a few months ago the DRAC gave us an update, which included how critical that this was & that it was also Gen Dannett's priority as well. So are we buggured or what and will any of the big boys re-sign in disgust. Apologies if this has been broadcast back in the UK.
  2. Last one out, switch the light off.
  3. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

  4. Not to worry, we will easily get another 35 years out of CVR(T) :roll:

    It will be LEEEP by then!
  5. If it's CVR(T) you're worried about, then this should be seen as good news...

    The Utility variant of FRES has been put on a back burner, whilst the Scout variant is being pushed forwards with greater priority.

    Still I wouldn't expect too much to change in the next 5-10 years, this is smart procurement after all :roll:
  6. BAE press release 03 Dec 2008.
    Interesting that BAE at least are not looking at a common turret.
  7. One thing you never ever do is put 'future' into your project name, it puts a curse on it.
  8. Buy off the shelf to keep costs down!!!
  9. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    A dumb comment that doesn't help. There enough discussions on here that blow that idea out of the water. Use search and educate yourself
  10. I cant remember the where it is on here but somebody posted Huttons report to parliament a few days ago, i would go hunting for it but im on here quickly. In it he said the utility vehicle was being postponed as the maker (General Dynamics?) would not accept modifications wanted by the MOD. However the recce vehicle is going ahead as planned.

    Now im not up to date on FRES but can it be used as a medium tank and used in Afgan similar to what the Canadians are doing? Or is that better suited to the recce model? If its the second then it seems logical to push back the utility to focus on the recce model. Though i awaiting to be corrected.
  11. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    Not quite right, the MOD setup a bizarre and very complicated procurement method for FRES. This basically has a huge number of links between different levels of contract, some of which haven't even been tendered yet. After almost 8 months of talking MOD couldn't agree with GD where the UVD aspect finished and the UVI (yet to be tendered) began. The MOD have made the desicion to scrap thier bizarre method and try again, from scratch, probably following the normal prime contractor route.

    I sort of agree, except that the plan was always to run both in parrallel with the UV a year or 2 ahead. Now we have just wasted 2 or 3 years of work, probably £100 million and are back where we started, with the 2 companies bidding on the recce project having been hit by large losses on the UV.

    I wait till the New year to see if anything will actually happen.

  12. How many UORs will the FRES budget pay for next year?
  13. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    Lots probably...then you ask yourself which would you rather have? Something bodged together in quick time from off the shelf items or half finished R&D work. Okay you get it in 6 months time, but it will be one offs, with no support structure behind it, and probably only meet one or 2 of your needs, hence you have 3 or 4 different vehicles to cover the range of options.

    Or something that 'in theory' is specced to meet your need, is designed to be flexible and have growth potential and you've done half the work on so you'll get it in 3 years time.

    Your choice.

    i understand the need for UORs, but we've been in 'action' knowing we need better armoured Utility vehicles for how long now? should we be relying on UORs to get us what we want, or could we have designed, built and shipped the vehicles we actually needed?

  14. There's the rub thobut, could've, would've, should've.