MOD signs contract for Scout vehicle

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Gun_Nut, Jul 1, 2010.

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. msr

    msr LE

    It will be a long time coming:

    The Army will be heavily involved in the project from the start, particularly in the exhaustive trials with prototype vehicles, which are expected to start in 2013
  2. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

  3. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    This must rank as one of the most inept and scandalous procurement sagas of all time

    £500 million for a 3 year development programme and 7 prototypes.

    The ASCOD chassis, transmission, engine, drivetrain and other components are already in service so what the fcuk are we getting for £71 million each

    CVR(T) was accepted in 1970 and we have had FFLAV, TRACER and now FRES.

    Total cost for these programmes plus the upgrade costs for CVR(T) is nearly a billion quid and at the end of that we still won't have a single production replacement for a 45 year old design
  4. bet theres some really gucci a4 folders and little models about though :oops:

    ffs its an armoured box with an engine and a gun.
    how difficult can it be?

    could have taken a hastings TA platoon in the 80s and got them to deliver it would have been cheaper :twisted: even including detox 'teaching people to read ,radical gene therapy on certain members so they evolved into homo sapian :cry: send some of them to study engineering get the rest to build a factory from scratch
    ugly could have built the weapons systems :twisted:
  5. Knew about this weeks ago under the Labour misgovernment.

    HMG had to choose between BAe (build in Newcastle solid Labour seat etc) and GD (We'll build it in a new factory in Wales, Labour/PC marginal).

    No point in giving it to the Geordies, them thick bastards will vote for us whatever we do to them.
  6. Is it me, or is that just a lightened version of the Warrior battle taxi? It sure as eggs looks like one, but I am ready to be enlightened.

  7. It's got a bigger gun :p
  8. And still no V-Shaped hull.
  9. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    Difference being that they didn't sign anything....the current government have reviewed the contract and have now signed the formal agreement.

  10. Why are we procuring an infantry fighting vehicle/APC variant as an armoured recce vehicle?

    Why the need for a compartment that can hold 8 infanteers in the back if its going to be used by the RAC?

    Why have we gone for something that could be smaller and sneakier (you know, to do recce) if it didn't have the compromise of this non-required compartment? You know, something about the same size as the CVR(T)s it is replacing, not a Warrior?

    The American Army uses a version of their Bradley IFV/APC as a 'cavalry scout vehicle', the M3. Have they been that happy with it compared to a proper designed recce vehicle? How can this vehicle then go and support light/mech forces that might have to be deployed by air (as Scimitar has been deployed in the 'Medium Armour' role I believe) or operate where there are unstrengthened bridges and infrastructure, if its a heavy-arse armoured bit of kit?

    It all seems a bit daft to me.
  11. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    *bites tongue* :x


  12. Absolutely not. To make it light they cut back the armour, which made it vulnerable. Which was a BAD thing, because its very tall, and very wide, and quite long, which makes the newly lightened scout vehicle a nice big target, which wasn't all that well protected to begin with.

    To be honest, it was a gash idea in the first place, and we've gone and copied them. Boo
  13. Hmmm, so a big obvious lightly armoured lump then :/ If we're following them, then boo indeed!

    I can imagine having 2 dismounts per wagon being not a bad thing to have, not enough to be used as infantry in i.e. section attacks, ambushes et al; but in terms of OPs, anti armour teams with Jav or something. I wonder if this is why we have gone down the IFV route - no more need for 'boot' troops or sqns then. But there again, if you want 2 dismounts, have room for 2, not 8. On the other hand I heard the American term for these 2 is 'JAFOs' - Just Another Fvcking Observer - so perhaps not too handy!

    Seriously though, theres got to be tons of other vehicles already out there and ready to buy that could fit the bill better, and examples of features from more vehicles still that could be built into a custom-designed wagon. Wiesel 2, Fennek, a shortened BMD2/3/4-clone if you wanted some dismounts and a fvck-load of firepower.... Even a 'Scimitar 2', roughly the same concept but new build and modernised design?

    I know that there's blokes at the ATDU and DLO/DPA/whatever its called this week who know what they are doing, but I still can't help wondering, what the fvck?
  14. Both BAeS and GD were offering 'cut-down' versions of the CV90 and ASCOD, so not a full section vehicle.

    As to size, I think there are many who would agree that WR or CR2 actually make better recce wagons than a CVR(T), simply due to the extra mobility and more powerful ISTAR. To be honest, I'm not convinced that 'recce by stealth' (aka recce by death) was ever an act of war anyway - in WW2, medium recce regiments quickly dumped their light tanks for a mixture of medium tanks (Cromwells and Shermans) and armoured cars.

    And lets not get too hung up on the vee-hull piece! Vee hulls are just one way of achieving mine protection, and add extra complexity to the mobility equation.