Discussion in 'Sappers' started by meridian, Sep 1, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Whats the story with this then
Uk; MoD ponders modifying Warrior Infantry Vehicle to Bridge layer
I assume.......possibly incorrectly, that it'll be a modified 512/513 variant? Though, who knows. It will be interesting to see.
There was upposed to be a bridgelayer in the FRES SV family.
Perhaps common sense has dictated that we could just mod an existing vehicle, rather than than spend uber-bucks developing a new one...
Now, about Warrior and Scout sharing a common turret...just how much difference are we going to see? Warrior as CVR(T) for 21st Century perhaps!
Sorry for being silly, but the idea of a bridgelayer is that it should be able to lay a bridge for all classes of vehicle, or by inference are we to assume that MOD has already decided to phase out CR2, be a shame to leave the Trojans on the wrong side of the river also.
And to coin the old joke, there was supposed to be FRES also.
And what, pray tell, the **** is wrong with 'Fascine, Pipe, Mini?' 9 rubber pipes held together with two lengths of chain held on to the wagon with 2 lengths of chain, dumped by some acute driving and the quick release of the commander. Cost-next to **** all
I never really understood whether the SV 'family' was simply there to allow the future BRR to operate entirely independantly, or whether this was part of the wider rapidly-deployable 'medium armour' wankfest that got everyone excited in the early part of the last decade...
And I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't really understand either...
ealth and safety, the pipes were not bio-degradeable.
Given the number of occasions where the Warrior has been the heaviest vehicle we have deployed; a Warrior bridge-layer laying a Warrior sized bridge makes some sense.
The problem is that discarding the Warrior's turret does not save as much weight as the bridge is likely to weigh. So either we have to find some other way of saving weight, or the bridge layer will be overloaded.
Laying the bridge backwards would also be a good idea, that way the engine helps counter balance the deploying bridge.
You mean; accept for Trojan.
And you mean "Except".
is bridging SV on the very back burner then?
This seems to me to a be a reaction to the fact that we are replacing a 10 tonne vehicle with a 30 tonne vehicle and there has been a bot of an 'oh shit' moment when realised that in order to do the recce role SV Scout will now need the assistance of an armoured engineer squadron or three and we dont have enough to go round. This being a gap filler
Would have thought a Terrier bridgelayer would have been more sensible though
Please accept my apologies for my exceptionally silly mistake.
We have not deployed Trojan every time we have deployed Warrior, and how much better that Terrier is Trojan anyway?
I really don't know - the whole FRES programme seems to be in state of 'flux' (or should that be 'fluckxed'') at the moment...
The gap crossing requirement doesn't really have anything to do with weight, more the gap itself. Like I said, I'm not sure if this is a recognition that a BRR operating by itself would always need augmentation to be truly mobile (an observation from WW2 was that the tactical and operational mobility of reconnissance units was often limited by lack of engineer assets), or whether its part of a plan to develop a 'lighter' medium-weight BG.
Terrier is not really designed to operate in the direct-fire battle, so I wouldn't want to be cabbying about in one up front at the sharp end...
No idea, I used to drive over the bridges not lay them. But it would be a bit silly to have brige layers laying bridges that could not, for example take a Leo or Abrams, AS90, MLRS, etc., given that these have been deployed at times when our MBT and other big things like Trojan have not.
Separate names with a comma.