FRES Scout Vehicle

#2
I'd just been reading the no knives for scouts thread, and my first thought someone is going to want to put a cork in the end of that barrel before somebody gets hurt.

Good find.
 
#3
I like the way the the news article talking about the Big And Expensive contender for FRES SV has a rather poorly modified picture of the Generally Disappointing ASCOD 2.

And the way that the Cased Telescopic concept is described as revolutionary when the US spent twenty years or so working on it since the late 1950s before it was cancelled by government audit for being fundamentally flawed. Maybe the French have got it right this time?
 
#7
Better protection, better armament (if it works), more room, more mobility with armour, better sensors.

It's not the ideal vehicle for Afghanistan, but it's primary purpose isn't that. But it will be a damn sight safer and more capable than the CVR(T) in whatever role it's put in. Unless the role requires it to be small and light over all other things.
 
#9
Irony, that's sounding like iron isn't it? ;)

In some ways the vehicle hulls put forward (CV90 MkIII and ASCOD 2) are bigger than Warrior, although I think that BAE have lowered the top of the CV90 hull to make it a bit lower profile, as they don't need the room for 8 infantrymen in the back.
 
#12
petergriffen said:
jonwilly said:
The guns French and the hull is not V shaped.
A MUST buy for Ganistan.
john
British and French.......plus are there many tracked armoured vehicles with purpose designed V shaped hulls?
Built and designed in France, on a Nexter site. Some of the funding's British though.

V-hulls are all well and good, but you'll note that most vehicles with V-hulls also have a metre or so of ground clearance. Not much good on a tactical vehicle designed to operate in an environment where the primary threat is direct fire.
 
#15
incendiarycutlery said:
Better protection, better armament (if it works), more room, more mobility with armour, better sensors.

It's not the ideal vehicle for Afghanistan, but it's primary purpose isn't that. But it will be a damn sight safer and more capable than the CVR(T) in whatever role it's put in. Unless the role requires it to be small and light over all other things.
My bold. So why bother procuring something that costs lots and won't necessarily contribute to the main effort?
 
#16
P2000 said:
incendiarycutlery said:
Better protection, better armament (if it works), more room, more mobility with armour, better sensors.

It's not the ideal vehicle for Afghanistan, but it's primary purpose isn't that. But it will be a damn sight safer and more capable than the CVR(T) in whatever role it's put in. Unless the role requires it to be small and light over all other things.
My bold. So why bother procuring something that costs lots and won't necessarily contribute to the main effort?
Because we won't always be in Afghan and you'd be pretty pi$$ed off if we ended up fighting, say, the Iranians with a load of MASTIFF - great against mines but with only a .50 on top! UORs are for now and come from a different budget from the kit that won't enter service for 10 years or so.
 
#18
P2000 said:
incendiarycutlery said:
Better protection, better armament (if it works), more room, more mobility with armour, better sensors.

It's not the ideal vehicle for Afghanistan, but it's primary purpose isn't that. But it will be a damn sight safer and more capable than the CVR(T) in whatever role it's put in. Unless the role requires it to be small and light over all other things.
My bold. So why bother procuring something that costs lots and won't necessarily contribute to the main effort?
I think if everything was bought to fight specifcally for Afghan then when it is (cough) finally finished we might not be as geared up in other places and other types of fighting as we would need to be.
So althogh we are concentrating on Aghan now we also should be mindful of future ops.
 

Latest Threads