British Army FRES utility vehicle has been selected

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
F35B	British Army FRES utility vehicle has been selected	Lead	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 50 ( 8-May-2008 16:41:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Ministry of Defence has today, Thursday 8 May 2008, announced the provisional selection of Piranha 5 as the preferred design for the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) Utility Vehicle What does anyone think of this. i thought the Piranha 5 would be picked as it is built by General Dynamics UK and the other 2 selections BOXER and VBCI are built by German and French companies. here is the Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Rapid_Effect_System I don't know much about the vehicle apart from it is very heavy at 25 to 30 tons! Looks like Hercules air transport is out the window and it will be up to the A400. I think the British army could also do with something C130 transportable and able to get in to a situation fast. I love the Viking and so do the troops in afgan. It seems like a real asset. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/ Do we have any big disadvantages going with a 8 wheeled vehicle instead of a tracked one? Its got a base weight of 26 tons which is heavy and is even pushing the A400 to lift it. i think the A400 has a maximum payload of 30 tons. Looks like the RAF better buy some more C-17's. but another questions does the UK really need to be able to drop a vehicle in from a plane are conflicts that quick that we couldn't wait for a ship to bring them over? With only 25 A400's getting bought and 6 C-17's its not like the RAF will be dropping of many to conflict anyway.. Does anyone know what FRES main mission is going to be?
BenRoethig		#1	[-]
Posts: 1768 ( 8-May-2008 17:52:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't know what the time scale for FRES is, but I'd surprised the MOD didn't take a look at the similar FCS program. BAE is involved, it has to be C-130 transportable, and best of all you have a large unit order that someone else is funding.
F35B		#2	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 52 ( 9-May-2008 11:25:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The FCS is a huge program but the vehicle part of it does look promising. We will have to wait and see what happens with FCS it seems like such a big project i can imagine bits getting cancelled and delayed. I think the UK needs some FRES like vehicles just now but should wait for armor development. The main points of FRES that are making it so heavy is the armor and this is affecting its air transportability. The UK should be pouring money into Armor research maybe using light plastics or ceramics or whatever other ideas are out there. The whole program has problems with weight so this looks like the main obstacle to over come. Also i'm not sure how many troops are going to fight in the back? One thing that does worry me is the use of wheels instead of tracks. Wheels are good the majority of the time but it depends where you are fighting. In Afgan the troops were so happy with Viking because it could take them places they couldn't get before. The UK armed forces are should be an expeditionary force we are never going to fight a war on UK soil! Part of this has to be ability to transport men and equipment to where its needed sometimes in a hurry or to a landlocked region where air transport is the only option. Still anything is better than nothing anyone know the in service dates or when we will see a trial production vehicle.
Scouse		#3	[-]
Posts: 261 ( 9-May-2008 15:05:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why does FRES need to be air transportable?. Unless we want to use the whole RAF airlift fleet trying to keep armour supplied with fuel, lubricants, spares etc after the initial deployment the logistics trail, from the UK, is going by boat. Air deployment of armour works for short punch and hold missions, as in the old Soviet air assault model, only. Deploying vehicles in theatre with the intent of supporting them over a protracted period is a job best done by sea transport so that the logistics elements get to come too!.
BenRoethig		#4	[-]
Posts: 1769 ( 9-May-2008 17:15:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The boat takes weeks.
Scouse		#5	[-]
Posts: 262 ( 9-May-2008 22:30:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There arent enough planes to keep even a single regiment of armour in the field for very long!. You wait for the boat or forget the armour! Last Edited By: Scouse 9-May-2008 22:47:59. Edited 3 times.
A G Williams		#6	[-]
Posts: 1690 (10-May-2008 10:13:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The C-130 transportable requirement for FRES was dropped a long time ago. It just has to be A-400M transportable now (and even that is pushing it a bit, once the basic FRES Utility starts getting add-ons). IIRC the US has recently dropped the C-130 requirement for FCS as well. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that vehicles need to be much better protected than of yore, and the requirements just can't be met within C-130 weight limits. Boxer was never likely to be selected as it's bigger and heavier than the others (a consequence of its modular construction) which would have made A-400M transportability very limited. Obviously Sarkozy's recent appeal to select the VBCI was ignored... Some FRES variants are likely to be tracked, e.g. FRES Recce. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk and discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
hulahoop7		#7	[-]
Posts: 1101 (12-May-2008 15:08:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think the idea is that most of the armour will be in effect 'clip on'. The vehicle travels in light, and gets the rest buttoned on when in theatre. The armour can therefore change over time. This is essentially what's happening at the moment in any case. The important bit is to make the vehicle capable of taking the weight of that extra button on armour from day one. I agree that linking FRES to air deployability is now a stupid thing to do. The UK will never have the capabiliy to support the force once it arrived by air, so why bother. Luckily the UK is doing ok in the amphib stakes. Those RoRos, Bays and Albions were worth every penny. Unfortunately the UK isn't building enough escorts to protect them!!!
Trouble	FRES	#8	[-]
Posts: 211 (14-May-2008 02:22:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I do wonder, why not just buy more Warriors. They are loved, already being used in role and a new production run of IFV types, rather than the WLIP, would allow existing vehicles to be taken out of the fleet, refurbed/converted to utility roles. There is a a persistent "lets replace everything with something new shiney and wonderfull with all the advances etc." which then takes years to arrive whilst just buying something piecemeal (as per UOR) actually gives you what you need without the heavy R&D overhead, but does ensure industry gets proper work rather than endless design/concept contracts. Is it me or is Piranha actually of Warrior age if you consider its evolution from LAV ?. If the uk had supported Warrior then would that not be developed to a simialrly "modern" look/spec ? The air deployability bit was always stupid, and where a few can make a difference = C17. Ref bolting armour on - dont underestimate the effort required to do that. 10+ hours/vehicle is not easy for your support resources to cope with whilst their strength is capped at the ongoing workload level which is probably already being exceeded - at present this is a contractorised task in theatre - how expensive is that per hour compared to UK depot / tankpark ? and if stuff needs extensive in theatre work to convert it from air transport status to combat ready, why not just ship it combat ready ? and buy some 40kt ferrys ? The other problem with bolt on, as opposed to cast in armour is that it generally gets in teh way of just about every mainteance/repair task that murphys law dictates will break or be damaged, so it adds to the time to do anything. still, big debate and at least they've made a decision on something.
A G Williams		#9	[-]
Posts: 1692 (14-May-2008 03:12:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Some good points about the bolt-on armour, Trouble. I think that the interest in wheels rather than tracks is down to such issues as higher road speeds, longer range, lower fuel use and better "image" for PR purposes in limited conflicts (tracked vehicles always get called "tanks" by the media). Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk and discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Pengolodh		#10	[-]
Posts: 1703 (15-May-2008 01:25:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Rolls Royce Marine has a couple of designs for fast logistics vessels with speeds in the 40 knots range, and range of 3000 nautical miles or so. The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

British Army FRES utility vehicle has been selected

British Army FRES utility vehicle has been selected

Quick Reply