MoD troop carriers are U.S. rejects

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 11, 2009.

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. MoD troop carriers are U.S. rejects... and '1 in 10' of our soldiers could die in Afghanistan

    Last updated at 10:30 PM on 11th July 2009

    New vehicles purchased to protect British troops in Afghanistan have already been rejected as unsafe by the US military.

    The vehicles failed basic 'survivability' tests, which showed soldiers would be left vulnerable to roadside bombs, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

    But although the Pentagon rejected them, the Ministry of Defence has ordered 262 to replace the controversial Snatch Land Rovers. In contrast, the Americans have now ordered a more robust model - at half the £600,000 cost of the vehicle the British have dubbed the 'Husky'.

    Unsafe: The 'Husky' failed basic survivability tests showing soldiers would be vulnerable to roadside bombs

    The disclosure, at the end of the blackest week for British forces in Afghanistan, came as Gordon Brown responded to growing anger over the death toll by promising to improve troops' equipment.

    Two of the soldiers who lost their lives in the most recent attacks were named last night as Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22, of 4th Battalion, The Rifles, and Private John Brackpool of Prince of Wales' Company, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, who would have celebrated his 28th birthday yesterday.

    A total of 15 British troops have died in just ten days in southern Afghanistan as they continue Operation Panther's Claw, a major assault against the Taliban.

    President Barack Obama said: 'My heart goes out to those British soldiers. We knew this summer was going to be tough fighting.'

    But MPs, shocked by the scale of the carnage, have been warned that the situation could get even worse.

    A senior member of the Commons defence committee told The Mail on Sunday that up to one in ten British frontline troops could lose their lives if the violence continues at its current intensity
    More on the link
  2. That's unlike the MoD to waste money? It's got to be better then the snatch though and at the end of the day even MBT's are taken out by IED's. 8O
  3. How can this be true.....

    I'm genuinly shocked. How can the MOD harp on about new kit when they do this?

    I suppose I shouldn't be suprise. They are the MOD after all
  4. They no doubt already would have entered into the contract for these vehicles. Once signed they can't just pull out.
  5. Why go and continue a war if you dont want to supply equipment? Its like giving builders rusty tools and limited crap materials to build a mansion. It will probably be half finished, shabby and falling apart.
  6. So basically, we ordered a different vehicle from the Americans. That's all this story is based on. Perhaps our requirements were different...
  7. I would have thought keeping soldiers alive and in one piece would be a requirement for both our countries... :roll:
  8. At half the price.

    Edited to add,

    When the Americans buy kit off the shelf, does the price double, to include,
    developing interface specifications, sub-system testing, design of vehicle integration kits, centre of gravity calculations, re-design and re-manufacture to beef up automotive components, electronics and power systems,then there's qualification testing, EMC tests, handling trials, not to mention reliability trials, user trials, safety cases... etc
  9. personally as a military uneducated civi, my opinion may not count for much but i am amazed at this. i am by no means a "team america **** yeh" enthusiast but the US military must have rejected this vehicle for a reason and looking at the pictures it seems as though you could fart on this vehicle and it would buckle.

    is there any particular reason why the MOD thinks this vehicle is pukka when the US military thinks its dead in the water???
  10. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Since when did the MOD not p1ss good money after bad? It fits that we would do something against the grain and buy sh1t that the yanks wouldn't touch....these defence contractors see us for the mugs that we are.

    And as to the '1 in 10' cas rate - fcuking poxy War without end...whats the point. I could kind of, vaugely understand it if the Talibs wouldn't be back up to strength with fresh kit, ammo and troops in the spring....which they will be. There is never a shortage of volunteers to fight for the Jihad against the 'great Satan' and his stooge (us) is there?
  11. "I suppose I shouldn't be suprise. They are the MOD after all "

    Curious question, asked as one who has more than a laymans understanding of the PM package - who do you think the MOD are?

    If you did a little digging you'd find that the guys buying this kit are doing so on the Key User Requirements set out by Theatre in their Urgent Statement of User Requirement (USUR) and those doing the procurement are very experienced Staff Officers who have got a lot of operational tours under their belt, and not some random Sir Humphrey type character. Husky is being bought because Theatre wanted us to buy Husky.

    Blame all you want, but the army is getting the vehicle that Theatre asked for. Don't sulk when you get what you wanted!

    Its all well to go "bloody MOD what do they know", but when MOD listens to the people on the ground and buys what they want us to buy them (as so many here insist we should be doing all the time), we suddenly catch it because its a "deathtrap".

    What the f*ck do you want us to do? You get the hump on when we don't listen to theatre and buy vehicles. You get the hump on when we do listen to theatre and buy vehicles they want? I'm a simple soul and am confused - whatever we do, we seem to do wrong in your eyes. What is the solution?
  12. Perhaps our own calculations worked out that the up-armoured version was too large, heavy or drank too much fuel to be effective in theatre.

    The cost will vary, I imagine, due to massive numbers ordered by the Americans.

    This story is in the Mail, and seems as though it's been spun together solely from our decision to order a less-armoured version than the Americans.

    It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out the Government have simply screwed us - again - but the mail don't have a great track record. The press read these forums and report on our comments so let's be selective about what we complain about and get our facts straight first.
  13. Stop reading the forums at 1am on a Saturday night? :D

    This is my point. The Mail will build a story about anything. If we throw our weight behind it and it turns out to be balls, we lose credibility. A bit like the boy who cried wolf.
  14. "Stop reading the forums at 1am on a Saturday night?"

    Too bloody right - just got in from a night out and am having a final drink before getting my head down! I do have a life - honestly :)
  15. Why are you all getting worked up about some bad reporting from the Daily Mail.

    It's not being bought as a "troop carrier" but as a logistic vehicle.

    Were the requirements the same? Doubt it.

    Really? It seems that every vehicle the MoD buys as a UOR is "a replacement for the Snatch LR" according to the press.

    The US orders more and therefore gets them at a reduced unit cost, it's called the economy of scale.

    This was just a piece to grab people's attention and get them snarling into their cornflakes. There is little substance to it, hence why there are only 3 paragraphs about it.