tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post756000698628939864..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: News from DVD2013 - UPDATEGabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-23055256134191623242013-07-24T04:47:35.830+02:002013-07-24T04:47:35.830+02:00The CR2 upgrade to me without changing the gun is...The CR2 upgrade to me without changing the gun is pointless the advantages of standardization with the US Army and Germany out way the possible costs if there is a problem with the turret change it for either an M1a2 or Leopard2a6 one with UK armour incorporated as it must be ammunition stowage that's the problem being one piece if it works out to expensive there are hundreds of cheap Leopard2's on the market but we in Europe are the only ones cutting the number of tanks we have everywhere else are buying them like there sweets in a candy shopAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66982997707386506892013-07-03T14:44:10.991+02:002013-07-03T14:44:10.991+02:00Very hard to say. I don't know what figures th...Very hard to say. I don't know what figures the army uses as official. In the field, effective range varies depending on countless factors, but we should remember the record kill from a Challenger 1, in Desert Storm, of an iraqi tank at 5100 meters. <br />Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-19587292755366021372013-07-03T14:39:52.219+02:002013-07-03T14:39:52.219+02:00What's the effective and max gun range of the ...What's the effective and max gun range of the current Challenger 2?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-91361651042553823192013-07-01T22:43:58.512+02:002013-07-01T22:43:58.512+02:00Gaby
Thanks for the reply. I suppose, as you say...Gaby<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. I suppose, as you say, that it "means everything and nothing" at the same time" We'll hope for the best. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-54289975849258403112013-07-01T22:20:57.522+02:002013-07-01T22:20:57.522+02:00I've read that article too, but i'm not ge...I've read that article too, but i'm not getting worried just yet. Most artifles on SOLDIER are rather... disappointing on this kind of informations. <br />The project anyway is still in its early phases, and they are just not saying anything other than "obsolescence management" that, potentially, means everything and nothing at the same time. It is just like when the commander of 16AA brigade said that among the options for the Apache CSP there was the idea of "doing nothing" or "buy a new helicopter". <br />They just don't want to tell us anything yet. <br /><br />Not SOLDIER's fault, but... said simply, that article was useless. I don't think it is a valid indication for anything. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-21900559158541428512013-07-01T22:14:30.053+02:002013-07-01T22:14:30.053+02:00Gaby
Re: My last comment. The outlook may not be...Gaby<br /><br />Re: My last comment. The outlook may not be as optimistic as I thought. I have just received my copy of "Soldier" Magazine and there is a short article in there about the Challenger upgrade. It says that the life extension project will see Challenger remain in the ranks until 2035 (another decade of shelf life).<br /><br />It goes on to state that previous efforts to upgrade its firepower and mobility were not successful and that the focus of the latest project will be on managing obsolescence i.e. replacing any components that will soon be unavailable.<br /><br />Doesn't seem too hopeful, does it? I suppose we shall just have to wait and see.MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-46009005846601322732013-06-30T10:21:21.895+02:002013-06-30T10:21:21.895+02:00Nice bit of news, it is indeed nice to hear!Nice bit of news, it is indeed nice to hear!Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-52619446227423159912013-06-29T23:10:33.846+02:002013-06-29T23:10:33.846+02:00Gaby
Re: your suggestion of replacing the Challen...Gaby<br /><br />Re: your suggestion of replacing the Challenger's 1200 hp power pack with a 1500 hp pack.<br /><br />I remembered that I read a few weeks ago about a trial taking place (I think it was at Bovington) using a Titan Bridgelayer which had been fitted with a 1500 cc engine. Might be nothing in it (might have been that they were trying to solve a problem with pushing the mine plough or something) but,on the other hand, it could signify something and could augur well for the future. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-88496358044391938072013-06-26T22:12:22.383+02:002013-06-26T22:12:22.383+02:00The pleasure is mine!The pleasure is mine!Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-10669207443161375822013-06-26T21:36:54.061+02:002013-06-26T21:36:54.061+02:00Thank you Gabriele, it's a pleasure and an hon...Thank you Gabriele, it's a pleasure and an honour to discuss with you.Frenchienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-76526308620102558712013-06-26T19:45:54.898+02:002013-06-26T19:45:54.898+02:00Well, first of all the french buy must happen and ...Well, first of all the french buy must happen and the desired 1 million pricetag demonstrated. For now, it is only an aspiration. <br /><br />As for the British Army, in theory everything is possible, but it'll depend on the funding available and on the relative priority accorded to FRES UV among other programs. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-90876522530441177842013-06-26T19:31:11.170+02:002013-06-26T19:31:11.170+02:00Hello Gabriele,
We will buy 1000 VBRM, they will c...Hello Gabriele,<br />We will buy 1000 VBRM, they will cost about one million euros each, so the operation will cost about one billion euros, is it possible to do the same thing for the British army ?<br />Like CVR(T) series with 3000 vehicles of this family were made by Alvis Vickers.<br />With VBRM or one of the same profile, RG-35 or other, I'm not promoting a vehicle that does not yet exist :)Frenchienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-49639141735288822592013-06-25T19:28:45.853+02:002013-06-25T19:28:45.853+02:00It might well be, but since both Warrior CSP and F...It might well be, but since both Warrior CSP and FRES SV are still in demonstration phase, and ABSV is just in the concept phase, i believe things are still quite fluid. And choices will have to be made on the basis of the latest evolutions of army 2020 and of the budget. Let's hope some more information comes out sometime soon. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-68574931515821650592013-06-25T18:14:59.500+02:002013-06-25T18:14:59.500+02:00Gaby
Again thanks for the reply.
I would certain...Gaby<br /><br />Again thanks for the reply.<br /><br />I would certainly be in favour of producing more FRES SV vehicles rather than taking money from that programme to help more Warrior upgrades. The FRES is a more modern vehicle altogether and will not reach obsolescence until decades after the Warrior.<br /><br />On the subject of improved armour for the Warrior, I think I caught a glimpse on the Janes' video (of DVD 2013) of a vehicle with the Modular Protection System (a fleeting shot of British Army heavy armour). It most probably was the Warrior rather than FRES SV (or even the Bulldog!) That probably shows that the British Army/MOD is thinking seriously about fitting it to future versions.<br /><br />On the subject of the Ambulance version of Warrior, I knew that some had been converted from artillery vehicles as UORS (only a few). I am pretty sure the officer I mentioned was talking about a mainstream programme to upgrade Warrior for the future. MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-78988578581371296452013-06-25T16:23:21.625+02:002013-06-25T16:23:21.625+02:00I know there are a small number of Warrior ambulan...I know there are a small number of Warrior ambulances, obtained thanks to modifications done by the REME on the old Royal Artilery Battery Command Vehicle variant, which was no longer really in use. <br />That's yet another thing to clear: i don't think if it is good for the future, or if it is just a stopgap. <br /><br />The point is that upgrading Warriors might not be enough even to provide the support vehicles for the Warrior force. Some mix up of FRES SV and other vehicles is, i believe, impossible to avoid. At that point, producing more FRES SV might be the best option. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-29652926907770513872013-06-25T16:14:47.992+02:002013-06-25T16:14:47.992+02:00Gaby
Much clearer now. Thanks for taking all tha...Gaby<br /><br />Much clearer now. Thanks for taking all that time to explain.<br /><br />One or two confusing details still remain, though. I am quite convinced, for instance, that I read a few months ago in "Soldier Magazine", in an article that was on the subject of Warrior upgrades, a remark from a senior officer, who said that it was good news because Warrior would now have an Ambulance version. That suggested that the "old" ABSV programme was going ahead, at least in part.<br /><br />On your point about not doubling up on variants provided by both FRES SV and Warrior, yes, I would agree that it is not a good idea to duplicate. However, that would mean using FRES SV variants in Warrior armoured infantry battalions and vice versa. Would there be enough vehicles to go around, especially if the FRES SV variants were to be cut back because of more emphasis being put on the Warrior programmes? MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-85669069792112804092013-06-25T15:47:02.310+02:002013-06-25T15:47:02.310+02:00Yes, it's obvious that the MOD will not swap h...Yes, it's obvious that the MOD will not swap his Warrior against the VBCIs, but for the variants ground radar, ambulance, launched anti-tank missile, it's possible.Frenchienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-53401147993680724512013-06-25T15:35:39.129+02:002013-06-25T15:35:39.129+02:00I know, the French army has definitely chosen to p...I know, the French army has definitely chosen to prioritize wheels over tracks. However, the british army is shaped around the Warrior and FRES Scout, both tracked, so the various support variants will be indispensable. Reductions are possible, but a complete passage to wheels, no. I can’t see the British Army putting wheeled combat vehicles in the same battalions made up by tracked ones. <br />The FRES UV, which is focusing on wheeled platforms, could indeed be based on VBMR, but it is planned to equip three battalions in addition, not in replacement, to the Warrior ones. As I’ve written, I’ve been interested in the VBMR since the beginning: it is definitely a vehicle the british army should consider… economies of scale would be considerable. <br />Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-50278331045371679742013-06-25T15:35:17.761+02:002013-06-25T15:35:17.761+02:00Regarding the Challenger 2, the powerpack replacem...Regarding the Challenger 2, the powerpack replacement is only my guess about what "the good things" might involve. The replacement of the rifled gun with a NATO standard smoothbore is not going to happen, but i hope the planned change of powerpack will still go ahead. <br /><br />As for the Warrior, you are not the only one who's confused! <br />However, the MOD apparently still has 565 working Warriors, of all variants, which it can realistically maintain. That's how i interpret the "affordable" adjective. <br /><br />According to the NAO 2012 report, 445 of those 565 vehicles are due to be touched by the CSP programme. <br />These 445 vehicles must contain: the combat, the recovery, the repair and artillery observation vehicles for 6 battalions. <br /><br />There are around 56 "combat" Warriors in each battalion, so you'd need 336 in total, plus some training and attrition. <br />Shephard notes that 65 "combat" Warriors are already being readied, and the army aspires to get 300 more, so my calculation is confirmed. 336 + some slack. <br />There are also at least 7 recovery/repair vehicles in each battalion, and a number of Warrior recovery/repair also appear in the REME components of tank regiments and other heavy armour formations. At least 50 Recovery/Repair vehicles are needed, probably more. <br />And then there are the Artillery Observation Posts. <br />Realistically, we do reach the 445 number. <br /><br />365 Warrior "combat"<br />80 "support" Warriors<br /><br />Then there is the ABSV, that is "a new variant (or variants?)", without turret. The NAO does not update us on what requirements the ABSV is going to fullfill. <br />But as we saw above, there is no room in the 445 CSP vehicles to build a new variant. Unless, but i hope it is not the case, the battalions are mounted in "mixed" companies of "Combat" Warriors (with turret and 40mm gun) and "APC" Warriors, without turret and armed only with a shielded machine gun or, in the best case, a RWS. <br />But i hope this is not the case, it would steal away a hell of a lot of firepower from the battalion. <br /><br />I'm assuming that ABSV will (eventually) be obtained converting the other 120 Warrior vehicles making up the Affordable fleet. <br />Curiously, 120 is almost the same thing as the 125 ABSV that have been the planning assumption in the last decade. <br /><br />The question is: what is ABSV about? <br />Originally, it was about an APC, a Command Post and an Ambulance. But all these variants are supposed to come out of FRES SV, and two similarly sized tracked command vehicles aren't needed. <br />That's why i say that mortar carriers and bridgelayer would be the best uses for those Warrior hulls. <br /><br />Complex matter, i hope my explanation is clear enough to be understandable! <br />Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9383009802368232302013-06-25T15:05:27.581+02:002013-06-25T15:05:27.581+02:00Hi Gabriele.
I don't know if the MOD is not g...Hi Gabriele.<br /><br />I don't know if the MOD is not going to turn back and give the greater part of the variants of FRES project to Utilitary Wheeled Vehicles.<br />Vehicles of the French Army in 2020 will all wheeled vehicles, except the Leclerc tank of course.<br />We will have the VBCI which will have the role of Warrior. The EBRC vehicle designed to replace the Sagaie and AMX-10 RC. <br />The VBRM that replace the VAB in all its variants, which is considerable. That would be good news for the United Kingdom because these vehicles are very cheap.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9hicule_de_l%27Avant_Blind%C3%A9Frenchienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-36193093148415261552013-06-25T13:16:30.596+02:002013-06-25T13:16:30.596+02:00Gaby
Sounds as if there really will be some oppor...Gaby<br /><br />Sounds as if there really will be some opportunity to do “some really good things” to improve the Challenger. Did the Brigadier General specifically mention the upgrading of the power pack to 1,500 hp or was it your idea of an “opportunity”. Not 100% clear from your wording.<br /><br />As you say, not such good news on the Warrior CSP programme. I find myself becoming very confused about figure here. As you say, “If Shephard's report is correct and the 300 further vehicles are to be intended as "turreted", that would mean a maximum of 365 vehicles armed vehicles upgraded from a total of (if the NAO data is still up to date) 445 vehicles interested by the CSP... This would leave 80 repair, recovery and artillery observation vehicles. The numbers should be about right for the planned force of 6 armoured infantry battalions.”<br /><br />And yet you go on to say “Especially since it is not even clear from where the ABSVs will come from: there is no real room in the 445 vehicles highlighted for the CSP: perhaps ABSV would be about conversion of the remaining 120 vehicles (565 affordable fleet - 445 for CSP). <br /><br />I am confused by the term “affordable fleet”. Does that include vehicles not included in the CSP programme, perhaps even still armed with the old Rarden, or will the remaining vehicles be used for another purpose, e.g. for conversion to ABSV (which is included anyway as part of the CSP). I hope this is all clear, Gaby. I am really muddled now. Sorry!<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9249035918304459062013-06-24T18:16:05.565+02:002013-06-24T18:16:05.565+02:00It is a possibility. Was it not to prove satisfact...It is a possibility. Was it not to prove satisfactory, they could launch a new requirement for a light recovery vehicle and seek a different solution. For now, though, it seems to be Husky. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-23369462739466687392013-06-24T18:12:55.229+02:002013-06-24T18:12:55.229+02:00Gaby
Many thanks for your thoughts on those matt...Gaby <br /><br />Many thanks for your thoughts on those matters. <br /><br />Did not think the Husky would be selected in the light recovery role. There were some other interesting candidates around, including one (the Penman-EKA), based on the DURO vehicle and one, I think, on the 6-tonne MAN truck. Apparently, those developing the Husky version managed to break it during one test! Maybe it is a UOR for Afghanistan and not the same programme as the others?MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-11022897806338706082013-06-24T17:53:49.174+02:002013-06-24T17:53:49.174+02:00I don't doubt the qualities of the Warthog, bu...I don't doubt the qualities of the Warthog, but it is no immediately evident place in Army 2020. If there was money to spare, probably the Army would have mounted a battalion on it for mountain, jungle and difficult terrain ops, but money will have to go towards more immediate needs. <br /><br />As for the Foxhound, it was designed primarily to have the shape it has now, that of protected patrol vehicle to replace the Snatch land rover. Of course, in the longer term, it would be fantastic to order more, and replace Jackal and Husky and Coyote as well. But for now it is financially unthinkable, and we should just be very happy that there are Jackals and Huskys around! <br /><br />As for fighting vehicles for 16AA, i think the Army would prefer the Jackal, despite the limitations in its Chinook transportability. Jackal is more appropriate for pure fighting, and the Army had already launched a call to introduce in service a new parachute load platform sized for 10 tons loads and specifically thought for launching combat-ready Jackals (and Foxhound too, as the weights classes are the same). Not clear if it went ahead or not, though. Might have been delayed. <br /><br />The Storm as combat vehicle could still have a role (perhaps with the Pathfinders as well as with special forces) but i mostly see it in for niche applications more than frontline fighting. For that, Jackal is overall better suited. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-16163476129825981012013-06-24T17:44:43.887+02:002013-06-24T17:44:43.887+02:00Gaby
You have highlighted some interesting points...Gaby<br /><br />You have highlighted some interesting points in this item on DVD 2013.<br /><br />First, there is the matter of Warthog and it looking as if it will not go into the Core budget. I think that it’s more than a bit of a shame because that vehicle seems the just the kind that the British Amy might need in a future out-of-area contingency. It is very fast, mobile and well-protected. Above all, it is all-terrain with superb cross-country performance. Can you name another vehicle that will do the job equally well? The 100 re-furbished Vikings will be pretty much taken up by the Royal Marines.<br /><br />The British Army must have had the WMIK version in mind when the vehicle was first designed, mustn’t they? They are the only users of the vehicle and must have expected the other two versions (WMIK and Utility) to enter service, I think. Would be nice to see a well-protected WMIK in service. <br /><br />As far as the Storm vehicle is concerned, do you think that the Army possibly has it in mind as a lightweight fighting vehicle for, say, 16 AA Bde, as well as it filling the role of casualty evacuation? The Army lacks that kind of light, nippy vehicle.<br />Mnoreply@blogger.com