Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The FRES Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda, Thread,

Ajax - I know theres lots of Complaints about size and weight** But weight was always going to increase when construction was steel rather than aluminium and growth was inevitable when it became a surveillance platform rather than a aluminium horse with a gun.
If ive a criticism its why such a large turret ring, why not accept larger ring for the 120mm direct fire was needed for that alone - it kills internal space - if the Ajax had a smaller turret - then plausibly there would be room for dismounts and so the APC variant could be dispensed with (savings in manpower and support there)

Boxer - I look at Boxer and I dont see an APC, I see an undergunned IFV, Its to big, To heavy to complex and to expensive to equip the Army.
Boxer makes sense if you've gone French a la VBCI and ditched Warrior - To my mind MIV should have been amore akin to the French Griffon - Although I concede strike may be more in need of something like boxer.

Both (indeed all modern armour) though seem to have suffered a bloat in height and weight caused by the need to make everything V hulled and otherwise massive roadside bomb proof. Now from the point of view of the operator thats a plus - but in the broader picture the bigger vehicle is a bigger target in a peer conflict and the expense means we can afford fewer. Perhaps the distinction between AFV and Protected mobility should be clear and uncompromising and mine/ bomb protection being of less import in the former. Thats not to say don't incorporate any protection.

So my prejudices and ( lack of) logic laid out lets get to the coulda woulda shoulda Did we miss a trick with the BAE / Haglund's SEP

It was dropped by Sweden as they couldn't go it alone and it was rejected for FRES
I postulate (with the benefit of 2020 hindsight) this was an error

There was a short hulled 6x6, a long hulled 8x8 and tracked variants -

MIV obviously the 8x8

Fres SV - bought as both wheeled and tracked a split fleet of both thus avoiding mixing wheels and tracks in brigades yet retaining commonality of spares and if as much of the tracked versions running gear matches warriors that further reduces any additional logistic burden.
Its unlikely HMG would ever spring for spare sets of gear so the fleet could be converted - but 2 wheeled and 2 tracked regiments or units train with a small pool of both and deploy with whatever is most suitable.

It would im sure have not been as protected, but would have been smaller - potentially cheaper and with export possibilities and I dare say in light of the Fres saga it would have been in service already.
The reduced logistic burden may have supported a larger buy and could perhaps of obviated or at least reduced the need for a Bushmaster class vehicle.



**Usually of the its as big and heavy as a t64 but only has a 40mm , whilst bizarrely the bigger than Abrams Boxer CRV attracts no such criticism.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Ajax - I know theres lots of Complaints about size and weight** But weight was always going to increase when construction was steel rather than aluminium and growth was inevitable when it became a surveillance platform rather than a aluminium horse with a gun.
If ive a criticism its why such a large turret ring, why not accept larger ring for the 120mm direct fire was needed for that alone - it kills internal space - if the Ajax had a smaller turret - then plausibly there would be room for dismounts and so the APC variant could be dispensed with (savings in manpower and support there)

Boxer - I look at Boxer and I dont see an APC, I see an undergunned IFV, Its to big, To heavy to complex and to expensive to equip the Army.
Boxer makes sense if you've gone French a la VBCI and ditched Warrior - To my mind MIV should have been amore akin to the French Griffon - Although I concede strike may be more in need of something like boxer.

Both (indeed all modern armour) though seem to have suffered a bloat in height and weight caused by the need to make everything V hulled and otherwise massive roadside bomb proof. Now from the point of view of the operator thats a plus - but in the broader picture the bigger vehicle is a bigger target in a peer conflict and the expense means we can afford fewer. Perhaps the distinction between AFV and Protected mobility should be clear and uncompromising and mine/ bomb protection being of less import in the former. Thats not to say don't incorporate any protection.

So my prejudices and ( lack of) logic laid out lets get to the coulda woulda shoulda Did we miss a trick with the BAE / Haglund's SEP

It was dropped by Sweden as they couldn't go it alone and it was rejected for FRES
I postulate (with the benefit of 2020 hindsight) this was an error

There was a short hulled 6x6, a long hulled 8x8 and tracked variants -

MIV obviously the 8x8

Fres SV - bought as both wheeled and tracked a split fleet of both thus avoiding mixing wheels and tracks in brigades yet retaining commonality of spares and if as much of the tracked versions running gear matches warriors that further reduces any additional logistic burden.
Its unlikely HMG would ever spring for spare sets of gear so the fleet could be converted - but 2 wheeled and 2 tracked regiments or units train with a small pool of both and deploy with whatever is most suitable.

It would im sure have not been as protected, but would have been smaller - potentially cheaper and with export possibilities and I dare say in light of the Fres saga it would have been in service already.
The reduced logistic burden may have supported a larger buy and could perhaps of obviated or at least reduced the need for a Bushmaster class vehicle.



**Usually of the its as big and heavy as a t64 but only has a 40mm , whilst bizarrely the bigger than Abrams Boxer CRV attracts no such criticism.
The problem is that you're looking for coherence. If you look at what FRES was supposed to deliver - a single-ish platform, essentially a CVR series (whether wheeled or tracked) for the 21st century which would offer massive amounts of commonality, then we have failed.

FRES was supposed to address multiplicity of platforms. Well, we still have much of the legacy fleet in service from when the time FRES was conceived plus the plethora of new arrivals. 432 and many other things clank on.

Not only have we failed, but we have failed hard. Monumentally. Gifuckingantically.

You're now trying to drag coherence from the 'quick, we better at least buy something' panic that followed press attention - deserved press attention, incidentally.

I don't think we should be getting Ajax full stop, but we are. It's apparently going to be a very good platform, despite what the nay-sayers proclaim. Would I be starting the reconnaissance from here now, though? No.

Boxer? Well, we're retaining Warrior - for now. If Boxer is what we'd have gone for if we weren't, then I see no harm in having Boxer just because we are.

SEP was closer to what we were claiming to be looking to achieve - but BAE, who were apparently out of favour at the time (and with that prejudice bang goes the CV90, too, which is what we liked and wanted, and would have given us a common and modern platform).




In short, don't look for logic because there isn't any.
 
I don't think we should be getting Ajax full stop, but we are. It's apparently going to be a very good platform, despite what the nay-sayers proclaim.


Army need AJAX, its the new 'medium tank' that will do 99% of the Panzerwerk
 
That Patria was overlooked for Boxer suggests perfection/exquisite tomorrow is still preferred over agricultural/robust/wide user base today.

Lets see what gets sacrificed to keep this purchase - I'm going for a 30% cull of OF4 and above.....
 
Stop CEA and that cull will self-select.
Maybe.
The reliance that many minor independent schools have had on BSA/CEA has apparently eased, most especially in the last 4 months where the middle classes are looking at the state of the state system and voting with their feet.

I think going back to showing evidence of independent financial means or a 2nd income could be just as effective.
 
In this context, it will get rid of a significant number of the bottom third who are sticking it out for the cash and the school fees.
That's a lot of talent working elsewhere higher up in the chain to gamble with for only £250m gain.

Which is maintaining BATUS for 5-8 years.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top