Should the British Army buy the Stryker for FRES off the shelf ?

#1
Should the MoD get us the Stryker or one of its other variants like Piranha to fulfill the FRES utility role ?

Wouldit be cheaper to buy it off the shelf rather than fanny about for the next 10 years ???

Your thoughts gents ???

Cos I am sick to death of rolling around in a Bulldog or Warrior Ambulance !!!
 
#3
blimey start your posting life on ARRSE with a fun one why don't you.

try a search on the website you'll probably find at least 3 or 4 threads with the discussion on FRES and options for it.

It generally boils down to - if stryker met the requirements then we would have bought it....it doesn't so there are 2 options, change the requirements to those that stryker meets and have a reduced capability, or keep the requirements and spend some cash on getting something built that will meet them.

Which do you want?

S_R
 
#4
Should we buy Stryker off the shelf - NO!

Should we buy Piranha V off the shelf? Possibly, but it doesn't exist fully on the shelf yet.

As I understand it, the reason nothing has happened, or is happening at the moment, was that FRES UV got put on ice in order to bring FRES SV (i.e. Scout et al) forwards. The logic being that there is a clear need for CVR(T) replacement to support current operations, whilst the presence of Mastiff/Ridgback is such that there is no immeadiate need for a troop carrier.
 
#5
Should the MoD get us the Stryker or one of its other variants like Piranha to fulfill the FRES utility role ?

Wouldit be cheaper to buy it off the shelf rather than fanny about for the next 10 years ???

Your thoughts gents ???

Cos I am sick to death of rolling around in a Bulldog or Warrior Ambulance !!!
Welcome to A.R.R.S.E. Admiral Johnson!

Or may I call you Jay?
 
#7
Stryker is by now means without its faults or detractors. There is a whole pressure-group type website in the US of many, many pages saying why it is no good. Could be the website is by a rival manufacturing firm!
I can see how having all NATO/ISAF having common vehicles is an excellent idea though in terms of logistics etc. Make alot of sense.
Discount anything by Mike Sparks and Combat Reform.com Mans a looney
 
#8
True! Sort of worth a read though. Looney.... or being paid to be a pressure-group activist/has shares in another firm. It sounds like he has a few dollars invested in the M113/Gavin to me somewhere. But could be another reason.
Sparks is the only person I have known refer to the M113 as the Gavin.

...I stand by to be corrected!


Seriously though, Stryker is not a bad piece of kit, and from what I understand the SBCTs like theirs pretty well in Afghanistan. It does have some serious limitations though - which are being addressed through later marks of Piranha - and as such I wouldn't want to be basing the future structure of the Army around it.
 
#10
The Stryker is a Piranha III variant and there are better 8x8 vehicles out there.

The logical OTS choice would be, IMHO, the Artec Boxer, but it depends how much you want to comply with Def Stan 23-9 for architecture commonality.
 
#11
didnt we british, have a hand in boxer ?......
 
#12
We did, which leads me to think that there might be enough of the original physical architecture in there that it might meet the British military requirements, although it would involve a rather large helping of political humble pie.
 
#13
Should the MoD get us the Stryker or one of its other variants like Piranha to fulfill the FRES utility role ?

Wouldit be cheaper to buy it off the shelf rather than fanny about for the next 10 years ???

Your thoughts gents ???

Cos I am sick to death of rolling around in a Bulldog or Warrior Ambulance !!!
I know this sounds sick but there is a sizable pressure group within a major arms manufacturer to refurbish M113, yes I said M113, and give it to the British Army as a stop gap. The notion has its supporters within the MOD!!! There are thousands of the things going very cheap.
 
#14
We did, which leads me to think that there might be enough of the original physical architecture in there that it might meet the British military requirements, although it would involve a rather large helping of political humble pie.
A lot has changed since the days of MRAV, and I'm no longer sure that architecture compliance would be a given.

Given how far GD got with the Piranha V design (which they have continued to progress since UV was put on hold), I would put more money on the ease of integration with this beast. The fundamental design of Piranha V has also benefited from alot of the lessons learned from Iraq/Afghanistan.

Standing by for me to be accused of working for GD!
 
#15
As I understand it, the reason nothing has happened, or is happening at the moment, was that FRES UV got put on ice in order to bring FRES SV (i.e. Scout et al) forwards. The logic being that there is a clear need for CVR(T) replacement to support current operations, whilst the presence of Mastiff/Ridgback is such that there is no immediate need for a troop carrier.
Am I deluding myself, or wasn't part of the idea of FRES that a common chassis would be used so e.g. Mowag 4x4 or 6x6 for scout and large versions 8x8/10/x10 for APC etc. Presumably that has now gone up in smoke, or could we just buy ASCOD for the UV role? Seems to me it would be a bit big and expensive, but if you can use a 42 tonner for reconnaissance I'm clearly yesterday's man on this subject.
 
#16
Am I deluding myself, or wasn't part of the idea of FRES that a common chassis would be used so e.g. Mowag 4x4 or 6x6 for scout and large versions 8x8/10/x10 for APC etc. Presumably that has now gone up in smoke, or could we just buy ASCOD for the UV role? Seems to me it would be a bit big and expensive, but if you can use a 42 tonner for reconnaissance I'm clearly yesterday's man on this subject.
The original 'powerpoint engineering' had a common chassis concept, with modular mission pods and special unobtainium armour to give greater-than-Challenger 2 in a C-130 transportable weight budget. But meanwhile, back in Reality-Land...

Subsequent analysis showed what we needed was a wheeled APC for use by mechanised infantry (UV), and a tracked platform for recce scout and medium armour (SV). This is a much simplified overview, there are many other variants that fall into the UV and SV categories.

The ASCOD 2 is being shortened for use as the Scout, and the 42-tonnes you've heard about is the vehicle's GVW, which allows for substntial weight growth in high-threat environments. In it's baseline variant, still bigger than CVR(T), but smaller than Warrior, and in terms of its role in finding stuff without dying prematurely, it's a big leap in capability.
 
#17
The ASCOD 2 is being shortened for use as the Scout, and the 42-tonnes you've heard about is the vehicle's GVW, which allows for substantial weight growth in high-threat environments. In it's baseline variant, still bigger than CVR(T), but smaller than Warrior, and in terms of its role in finding stuff without dying prematurely, it's a big leap in capability.
Thanks for the info. Do you know much about the 40mm because the drawing I saw made it look almost too good to be true, particularly to those of us still with 'Rarden finger' scars
 
#19
Thanks for the info. Do you know much about the 40mm because the drawing I saw made it look almost too good to be true, particularly to those of us still with 'Rarden finger' scars
Not much more than what is on t'interweb:

CTA International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf

From what I understand, the project has been reasonably succesful to date. The problems they've had with the Warrior mid-life upgrade (which was to include the same 40mm CTA) I believe are more to do with the turret itself.

The GPR airburst round does look like just what the troops are asking for in terms on increase direct firepower in Afghanistan.
 
#20
Is ASCOD being shortened? The computer generated pictures of the SV from GD show 7 roadwheels, and all current pictures of ASCOD show 7 roadwheels.
Last I heard it was.

Maybe they were just being lazy in showing an old graphic, or perhaps that have retained seven roadwheels but reduced the spacing?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top