FRES replace Challenger 2?

#1
is it likely that this will happen in the future? i have been told by someone it is a posibility! what do you know?
 
#2
I'll be surprised if anything in the current FRES envelope can supply the firepower and armour required for the Challenger role.

The only option I can see is that the MOD decides that MBT is not a required role anymore and hence those units currently in the MBT role will be kitted out with a FRES (or similar) with a bigger gun and some more armour as part of the 'growth' part of the FRES requirement.

There are FRES sized vehicles with 120mm guns on then and some with enough armour, but don't think anything has both and has kept the weight low enough to be counted as FRES and not a MBT replacement.

S_R
 
#3
LondonTankie said:
is it likely that this will happen in the future? i have been told by someone it is a posibility! what do you know?

and

2rtr is always going to be working on armour, its got much less poncy officers as well.
I wouldnt worry about that,at 16 id worry more about getting through phase one basic, though no doubt your experience of poncy officers :roll: will stand you in good stead
 
#4
I think FRES have enough to worry about without adding another variant onto the program, as far as the MoD are concerned FRES will come into service and there will still be Warrior and Challenger 2. There will more than likely be an upgrade to these fleets though.
 
#6
centman said:
What is FRES?

Been out of the loop for some time.
Pie in the sky, Jam tomorrow, sort of thing. An excuse to 'study' lots and produce little, WRONG, nothing.

Linky (1)

(1) Search engines are over there --------> :wink:
 
#7
PE4rocks said:
centman said:
What is FRES?

Been out of the loop for some time.
Pie in the sky, Jam tomorrow, sort of thing. An excuse to 'study' lots and produce little, WRONG, nothing.

Linky (1)

(1) Search engines are over there --------> :wink:

The One Size Fits All Concept.

Just like Education, Health, and other things now in vogue in our public life.

By the way, I believe the comment on the bottom of your submissions was attributable to TONKER, seek clarification from BWZ.
 
#8
centman said:
By the way, I believe the comment on the bottom of your submissions was attributable to TONKER, seek clarification from BWZ.
You may well be right mate, it sound just like him.

Dang I, Blast I, cassent go no faaster, youm knows I'm in zecond gear...
 
#9
centman said:
The One Size Fits All Concept.
It;s not quite a one size fits all, but originally the plan was that the vehicles should at least be fitted out with the same/similar kit to allow as much interoperability as possible. Although the way the MOD are handling the process this is probably goign to go out of the window as each of the 3 'vehicle' types will probably have a different integrator and so end up with different systems inplimented in different ways!!

There will be several 'variants' of each 'vehicle', so Utility vehicle (which is the only vehicle with half a contract in place) will be made up of several varients covering the different roles, but all based on the same chassis/running gear. The logic being similar to that of the 43 variants (i.e. having everyone in the same vehicles, but different variants to enable the roles to be covered but if you have the option of robbing parts off one to get another going etc.)

S_R
 
#11
Argee2007 said:
Anyone taking bets that the GDUK supplied vehicle will more than likely have problems installing the GDUK supplied BOWMAN :lol:
This could be the interesting bit... if GDUK doesn't win the UVI contract, and say BAE do, the you would have BAE trying to integrate the GDUK Bowman system into a GDUK vehicle, without the benefit of any experience of having fitted the rest of the fleet with bowman....and that could be even funnier to watch.

S_R
 
#12
Sympathetic_Reaction said:
Argee2007 said:
Anyone taking bets that the GDUK supplied vehicle will more than likely have problems installing the GDUK supplied BOWMAN :lol:
This could be the interesting bit... if GDUK doesn't win the UVI contract, and say BAE do, the you would have BAE trying to integrate the GDUK Bowman system into a GDUK vehicle, without the benefit of any experience of having fitted the rest of the fleet with bowman....and that could be even funnier to watch.

S_R

Nah, the contract is with GDUK to integrate BOWMAN into all vehicles, but from what's being said the Piranha V is looking favourite anyway.
 
#13
Yes,but it sounds more like, buying something that fits around (in a literal sense) Bowman, rather than Bowman being able to intergrate with whatever platform we end up with. Surely a better platform is desirable first, than any of the ancillary equipment fittings/placement etc?
 
#14
Argee2007 said:
Sympathetic_Reaction said:
Argee2007 said:
Anyone taking bets that the GDUK supplied vehicle will more than likely have problems installing the GDUK supplied BOWMAN :lol:
This could be the interesting bit... if GDUK doesn't win the UVI contract, and say BAE do, the you would have BAE trying to integrate the GDUK Bowman system into a GDUK vehicle, without the benefit of any experience of having fitted the rest of the fleet with bowman....and that could be even funnier to watch.

S_R

Nah, the contract is with GDUK to integrate BOWMAN into all vehicles, but from what's being said the Piranha V is looking favourite anyway.
There is no contract currently for the Integration phase of FRES, the design of the electronics and suchlike is unknown, apart from defined bits (like BOWMAN having to included) so whoever is chosen as the Integrator will have to ensure that BOWMAN integrates with the rest of the electronic architecture, or have it as a standalone system installed by GDUK (which isn't the point of an integrated system). It won't be up to GDUK to modify BOWMAN to fit FRES it will be up to the FRES UVI to ensure that FRES can accept Bowman.

S_R
 
#15
What happens is that FRES will invite BATCIS (BOWMAN IPT) to meetings about the design of the new vehicles, BATCIS will be a stakeholder within the project, but they won't have anymore say than anyone else. Remember BOWMAN is just one part of the suite that needs to be fitted.

What BATCIS can offer is advice on the vehicles being produced, such as 'by having the vehicle ready for BOWMAN it will save time, modifications and so on when it comes time for BATCIS to integrate it into the vehicle'.

It's basic engineering practice, if IPT 'A' are purchasing a vehicle they will make sure they have other IPTs as stakeholders and work out the basic fit to minimise costly modifications, wasted time and reduction in space.
 
#16
Argee2007 said:
What happens is that FRES will invite BATCIS (BOWMAN IPT) to meetings about the design of the new vehicles, BATCIS will be a stakeholder within the project, but they won't have anymore say than anyone else. Remember BOWMAN is just one part of the suite that needs to be fitted.

What BATCIS can offer is advice on the vehicles being produced, such as 'by having the vehicle ready for BOWMAN it will save time, modifications and so on when it comes time for BATCIS to integrate it into the vehicle'.

It's basic engineering practice, if IPT 'A' are purchasing a vehicle they will make sure they have other IPTs as stakeholders and work out the basic fit to minimise costly modifications, wasted time and reduction in space.
Or they define BOWMAN as in-service kit and state that it needs to be integrated onto the platform as part of the FRES solution then provide the system and information as GFX. Then the BATCIS doesn't need to get involved post vehicle production.

S_R
 
#17
Sympathetic_Reaction said:
Argee2007 said:
What happens is that FRES will invite BATCIS (BOWMAN IPT) to meetings about the design of the new vehicles, BATCIS will be a stakeholder within the project, but they won't have anymore say than anyone else. Remember BOWMAN is just one part of the suite that needs to be fitted.

What BATCIS can offer is advice on the vehicles being produced, such as 'by having the vehicle ready for BOWMAN it will save time, modifications and so on when it comes time for BATCIS to integrate it into the vehicle'.

It's basic engineering practice, if IPT 'A' are purchasing a vehicle they will make sure they have other IPTs as stakeholders and work out the basic fit to minimise costly modifications, wasted time and reduction in space.
Or they define BOWMAN as in-service kit and state that it needs to be integrated onto the platform as part of the FRES solution then provide the system and information as GFX. Then the BATCIS doesn't need to get involved post vehicle production.

S_R

BATCIS will be a stakeholder for the project, and they are the authority for the integration and maintenance of the equipment for the in service life, so they do have to keep involved throughout the life of the vehicle.

BOWMAN will be supplied GFE as well, but they should all work together in the project, it's when stakeholders don't bother showing up or aren't invited that problems start.
 
#18
Great - more spiel about BOWMAN.

Back to the topic regarding FRES and CR2.

FRES = Medium Weight capability.
CR2 = not medium weight.

/thread.
 
#19
:D Fres is meant to be the all singing, dancing and multi-talented armoured thingy!

basically look at the US Stryker, Canadian LAV and the roles that they are used for .
The yanks use them and MBTs,but they can afford both.We cant at the minute due to morons in the goverment wasting monies on trivial things like chavs civil rights
Fres is meant to replace saxon,430series and cvrt in some roles.

Chally should be safe for a few years yet ........hopefully!
 
#20
whatnow? said:
:D Fres is meant to be the all singing, dancing and multi-talented armoured thingy!

basically look at the US Stryker, Canadian LAV and the roles that they are used for .
The yanks use them and MBTs,but they can afford both.We cant at the minute due to morons in the goverment wasting monies on trivial things like chavs civil rights
Fres is meant to replace saxon,430series and cvrt in some roles.

Chally should be safe for a few years yet ........hopefully!

I remember when we wanted our own AWACS aircraft, rather than buy one already working, we tried to design our own based on the Nimrod, however many years later, and however many Billions of Taxpayers money, we found it didnt work.

Now we move onto the Chinooks that we tried to buy on the cheap and convert, how many billions of Taxpayers money wasted? And how many lives lost through not having enough kit?

And NO ONE is ever brought to task. Some Civil Servant gets moved, The PM or some other minister stands in the House and Says "We must make sure we learn the lessons, so that this never happens again.

Utter Crap, its not your relatives that are getting wasted, pal.

And the Taxpayer, picks up the tab.

And its Tommy This and Tommy That.

At least in China when someone srews up, they get slotted.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top