MoD announces short-list for FRES utility varient

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: MoD announces short-list for FRES utility varient
flamingknives 6/8/2007 12:09:04 PM

The MoD has released details of the trials for the FRES Utility Varient (UV) Those shortlisted are: Artec Boxer GD/Mowag Piranha IV/V Nexter VBCI Notable by their absence are any offering from Big And Expensive Systems and the Patria AMV. Also notable is the resurgence of the Boxer, as this was originally a tripartite programme with the UK involved. The UK pulled out some years ago citing weight growth. Presumably IEDs and improved AT weapons have put paid to the airmobile AFV concept. Anyone mentioning M113s or "gavins" *spit* deserves to be shot.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

perfectgeneral 6/9/2007 3:46:48 PM

FRES is a sick puppy and should be put down. The concept is strategically and tactically flawed. We shouldn't be putting vehicles on the ground and supply from the air is a bitch.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/9/2007 5:48:30 PM

Perfectgeneral, would you care to expand on that?

I'm hazarding that you have FRES (medium-weight, next-generation networked AFVs) confused with FCS (light-weight heavy effect via networking, airmobile by C130 and associated rubbish)

What, however, do you mean by "we shouldn't be putting vehicles on the ground" The only place that you can control the situation is on the ground, and I hope that you are not suggesting that the squaddies walk everywhere or take the helicopter.

Boxer, for the sake of example, weighs 33T all up, Piranha IV is 25T and VBCI 26T

Warrior is about 26T.

Quote Reply

neutralizer 6/10/2007 1:40:59 AM

Obviously the utility variant is the least demanding requirement and there's enough off the shelf choice to remove the need for a new design of vehicle, which reduces risk and may enable the FRES IOC date to be achieved.

CGS recently stated that FRES was his highest priority programme. Obviously the Capability Staff are still evolving the requirements for other vehicles. In this they are advised by the Concept & Doctrine Centre and staff in arms centres, DSTL and research contracts involving industry, consultants and competant universities such as London and Cranfield. I seriously doubt that there is any credible contrary view in UK, journalists and retired officers don't count (neither do some of the self-styled 'strategic studies' depts in some universities; some of the smarter retired officers work for consulting companies! Hence I'm fascinated to know the credible experts who think the whole programme is off with the fairies. And what their proposal is - presumably it starts with tearing up BDD, FLOC, etc, and replacing them with a set of their pet wacko notions.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral 6/10/2007 6:11:55 AM

I seriously doubt that there is any credible contrary view in UK, journalists and retired officers don't count (neither do some of the self-styled 'strategic studies' depts in some universities; some of the smarter retired officers work for consulting companies! Hence I'm fascinated to know the credible experts who think the whole programme is off with the fairies. And what their proposal is - presumably it starts with tearing up BDD, FLOC, etc, and replacing them with a set of their pet wacko notions.

I have touched a nerve here I think and I'm clearly in the minority. Last I heard FRES includes a requirement to be air 'portable (like FCS, but not FCS, definately FRES). Perhaps there is a need for some middle-weight armour, but I can't see it. If heavy-weight is too isolating from the people, then surely middle-weight will be too?

Now I'm not suggesting that General Sir Rupert Smith is against FRES (nor that he has wacko notions), but I believe that he advocates a light touch for so-called assymetric warfare: Embeded troops or out of theatre not 'target' bases. Intelligence gathering with the minimum of patrols. Perhaps it is better if I let him speak for himself: General Smith's lecture to RSA with follow-up questions

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 6/10/2007 6:46:03 AM

In all fairness PG, the FRES requirement has changed significantly over the 9 years or so in which it has been developed. IIRC the original version was to weigh no more than 17 tons, be able to do just about anything (from recce to utitlity) and have all kinds of fancy gimmicks such as electric armour. Most of this appears to have been dropped or altered, no doubt in response to the process Neutralizer has described.

The three vehicles look credible solutions to me. Like FK I'm surprised that the AMV has been dropped. I also think it's a shame that SEP has not been chosen, but perhaps that needs another 5 years.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/10/2007 3:26:14 PM

There is no C130 limit for FRES. There may be an A400M limit, but that is a desireable, not a demand. In any case, the A400M will carry up to 37 tonnes, which is more than any land vehicle save those based on an MBT chassis.

The medium-weight utility vehicles on the short-list are all wheeled, which is far lower profile when driving about on roads when compared to tracks. The weight of the vehicles, combined with new protection systems, means that they are as well or better protected than current tracked vehicles (save MBTs again)

From a British perspective, when you want a tank-like vehicle you currently have a choice of a Scimitar or a Challenger 2. Something in the middle would seem useful.

Quote Reply

neutralizer 6/11/2007 4:26:28 AM

The context for FRES is the FLOC (Future Land Operational Concept) not any particular types of military task in any particular theatre.

I'm always amused when people criticise generals for trying to fight the previous war then invoke previous wars when the planning looks ahead into the great unknown! The most difficult thing with requirements is making the decision to make no further changes.

The way I've always understood the FRES weight issue is that its light enough to allow a rapid build-up of a sufficient force. How that translates into a max weight per vehicle or vehicle type depends on a heap of assumptions including distance from deployment mounting base, not to mention the effectiveness of the force when it arrives. At the level of individual vehicle there's also the issue of empty vs cbt weight.

If you want to criticise FRES then I suggest start with a reasoned argument as to why it is incompatible with FLOC. Anything else is meaningless. Alternatively, start with demonstrating FLOC's irrelevance. Alternatively start with govt defence policy, prove its fundamentlly wrong, hence FLOC is wrong, hence FRES is wrong.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/11/2007 3:09:57 PM

You could start in on the MoD procurement policy, but that would be too easy.

Quote Reply

neutralizer 6/12/2007 5:56:40 AM

MoD Procurment Policy? A simple and trite through-away line.

What's wrong with competitive tendering when you have the choice? When there's no choice the 'no acceptable price, no contract' is the only possible option, unless you're in the pay of the defence industry and feel entitled to monoply profits. What's wrong with CADMID? These are all key elements of procurement policy.

Or is the suggestion that UK Armed Forces should thumb thru brochures and pick the cheapest or most expensive thing that looks vaguely suitable? Over the years MoD has learnt that this isn't a good idea because their scientists have analysed 'data' provided by vendors, particularly non-UK ones, and found they tell porkies. Shocking. OOps, sorry, its called 'rounding off the numbers', totally different to porkies.

Defence acquisition is driven by the need for capabilities to achieve the govt's defence policies. BDD sets the scene in a bit more detail and FLOC (for the Army) sets out the doctrinal way ahead. It's the job of the capabilities staffs to decide what capabilites are needed (they are part of MoD central staff), advised by DSTL, users, etc. The next step is to decide the most cost effective, tactically/operationally sensible, etc way of providing the capability - eg you want firepower out to 100km, should it be ground launched missiles, aircraft, space based weapons, whatever. This starts to bring in procurement ( C and A in CADMID) to fully explore the options, not least the whole life costs and risks.

I'm impressed that there are people on this list who are so well informed that they can say with confidence that the procurement system sucks. For those that aren't in this fortunate category then I'd suggest a few days studying AMS (the acquisition management system), its available online.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 6/12/2007 2:07:04 PM

Not MoD procurement policy as they'd like it to be, but MoD procurement policy as it is.

i.e. make a decision, change it, cancel it, start it again, change it until the original product has no chance of meeting the specification, cancel it and then start again with nothing to show for the initial expenditure.

Quote Reply

1 2