UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

British Army Future Wheeled APC

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Sep 2018, 17:54

Ron5 wrote:My guess for MFP is a small order for the French Caesar artillery system. The BA have been trialing it for ever.


That's what I thougth, too. And putting it onto a MAN truck... he-heh: repurposing :)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Ron5 » 20 Sep 2018, 19:27

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:My guess for MFP is a small order for the French Caesar artillery system. The BA have been trialing it for ever.


That's what I thougth, too. And putting it onto a MAN truck... he-heh: repurposing :)


A longer shot would be Donar on a Boxer chassis:

Image

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1880
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Gabriele » 20 Sep 2018, 20:39

My guess for MFP is a small order for the French Caesar artillery system. The BA have been trialing it for ever.


Holy crap, i hope not. That would be absolutely underwhelming.

By the sound of it, MPS is now officially about replacing AS90 as well. What this might mean, in practice, is that entry in service goes from 2025 to 2030 (AS90 OSD) so it becomes someone else's budget problem.

Change my mind.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Sep 2018, 21:17

Gabriele wrote:2030 (AS90 OSD) so it becomes someone else's budget problem.

Change my mind


... difficult. And that Donar is a monster
- however, the 8x8 Caesar is v neat; Except for the fact that it goes out of action if there
A. are delayed action minelets (you know, the ones banned by an int'l Treaty) fired into the area, or
B. the area is (N)BRC contaminated, or suspected to be

101 of defence planning: Ask yourself who we might be fighting
102: Observe their latest 'dirty tricks' ... like Ukraine & Syria
103: Prepare for worse

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1880
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Gabriele » 20 Sep 2018, 21:26

Seriously, the baseline CAESAR is little better, and in some ways even worse, than a towed howitzer with a good towing vehicle. I don't know why anyone should ever bother with that. Almost no traverse at all; crew has to dismount and operate in the open like for a towed gun; road mobility good, but is it that much better than a good tow solution...? And, of course, no helicopter lifting option.

The evolved CAESAR 8x8 picked by Denmark already makes a bit more sense, but i'd wouldn't put my money there.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Simon82
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Simon82 » 20 Sep 2018, 22:08

What about the Scandinavian Archer system?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1880
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Gabriele » 20 Sep 2018, 22:14

Better. Crew doesn't need to dismount and it has traverse. Archer is a wheeled self-propelled howitzer. CAESAR is an auto-cannon, aka a cannon stitched on the back of a truck. Literally.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Sep 2018, 06:57

Gabriele wrote:Better. Crew doesn't need to dismount and it has traverse.


Half of the batch for Norway is in storage, ready to roll.

The teething troubles were blown out of proportion: it did not stabilise quickly enough for the 6 rounds having simultaneous impact 40 km away to be practical... and there were fumes getting into the armoured crew cab
- the real story is that even though for Swedish terrain with a meter of snow Archer mobility is not a problem, that much of snow in mountainous terrain needs tracks - which is what the Norgies got in the end
... and it has a UK :D gun in it

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 14:48

Oh well another Army programme that will go round and round in circles as funding is put in place, taken away, put in place again whilst at the same time the MoD cannot decide what sort of platform they actually want and so on. Without new money, and most of the next ten year equipment plan is already taken up we might get to further trails and if we are very lucky a very small purchase under the new UOR style procurement that brings a small amount of urgently needed equipment straight into the core to support the first Strike Brigade. Not very optimistic about this.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 21 Sep 2018, 15:00

Lord Jim wrote:if we are very lucky a very small purchase under the new UOR style procurement that brings a small amount of urgently needed equipment

I think you're dreaming of you think they can justify bringing MIV in under UOR unless we suddenly have a major conflict.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Sep 2018, 16:56

Lord Jim wrote: Without new money, and most of the next ten year equipment plan is already taken up


Wrong. Most of it is not taken up... just that, because of indecision and shifting goal posts, there is a huge crowding out effect in the early years... ehhrm: early as in to 2025, which is not that far off from being the end of the 10-yr horizon
- correcting for all the mistakes, errors, delays is simply bunching up, to get any "rational" formations... other than the ex-PM's "Cold War Dinosaurs"

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Ron5 » 21 Sep 2018, 17:23

That Boxer gun looks a nice piece of kit. Presumably more mobile off road than the truck types. Also presumably fast to get in and out of action due to an unmanned turret. Manufacturer says it can shoot 30 rounds before resupply. Is that enough?

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 833
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Jake1992 » 21 Sep 2018, 19:03

How does the boxer 155mm compare to ( what I'd consider ) the other main contender the archer class ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 19:30

RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:if we are very lucky a very small purchase under the new UOR style procurement that brings a small amount of urgently needed equipment

I think you're dreaming of you think they can justify bringing MIV in under UOR unless we suddenly have a major conflict.


I am not talking about a traditional UOR to start with, secondly I was talking about any new Indirect fire support platform. As for the first part, efforts are being made to transpose some of the procedures used when using a UOR to purchase urgently needed kit for ongoing operations into the standard procurement process to speed things up.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 19:48

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: Without new money, and most of the next ten year equipment plan is already taken up


Wrong. Most of it is not taken up... just that, because of indecision and shifting goal posts, there is a huge crowding out effect in the early years... ehhrm: early as in to 2025, which is not that far off from being the end of the 10-yr horizon
- correcting for all the mistakes, errors, delays is simply bunching up, to get any "rational" formations... other than the ex-PM's "Cold War Dinosaurs"


Form what I see there is a huge bow wave of procurement programmes that are going to wash over into the next ten year equipment programme that should have been completed during the current one ending in 2025. These are not just the ones planned but also those brought about be premature reaching of the end of service life of kit not bought in sufficient quantities to spread out the usage, which in itself was higher than planned. There are also items that will have to be replaced through necessity as they have been ignored in the past and have reached the end of their service lives. Add to this the problems, financial issues and the fact that it will again rely on the MoD making efficiencies for it to be affordable in any sense means I am not that confident.

Now if the programme was full funded and if any savings the MoD was able to make could be spent on kit that was on the nice to have list then I would feel better. But that will not happen and so there will be yet another funding shortfall, programmes will again be slowed down, numbers reduced and so on. The MoD needs a period of stabilisation with secure funding which is has nor will it be allowed to have. It almost need to be able to run a surplus over the next ten year plan to ensure contingencies are covered. Things are so taught even now that without a true buffer the whole thing could come crashing down requiring wholesale cancellations and delays to many programmes. I have seen what happen in a single team when something like this happens and in my case the equipment involved was withdrawn from service six years earlier than planned and not replaced. At the same time support contract were put on hold so that any U/S platforms had to allow others to be supported by even basic spares. It was the age old case of it takes minutes to bring things to a stop but months if not years to start them up again. This happening across the MoD is not unimaginable.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Sep 2018, 20:01

Much better words than mine:
Lord Jim wrote:Form what I see there is a huge bow wave of procurement programmes that are going to wash over into the next ten year equipment programme that should have been completed during the current one ending in 2025. These are not just the ones planned but also those brought about be premature reaching of the end of service life of kit not bought in sufficient quantities to spread out the usage, which in itself was higher than planned. There are also items that will have to be replaced through necessity as they have been ignored in the past and have reached the end of their service lives.


Force 2020 could have been reached by about 2023/24
... now we have a new plan (in 2018; and the scope for it - how the money will be spent - seems to be forever narrowing. As there is not enough of it AND whatever there was, in the last ten years - 2008 was a sort of a peak - has largely been misspent)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 21:01

If the current MDP only produces a new set of guidelines to the procurement process that are based on logic and sound finances that are backed by the Treasury I will be happy. This may mean that every ten years the Treasury says here is your pocket money for the next decade now write a shopping list. It would mean that programmes would have to be very well planned to achieve set benchmarks in a set time, each step fully funded though. If problems arise, well the MoD will have to be careful and have a realistic amount put to one side. Hand in hand with this though would be that if the MoD had money left at the end of the programme it would be carried over into the next. I know many equipment programmes last more then ten years, but how I see it programmes need to be broken down into finite blocks both for time and cost. A programme nay complete its assessment and development in one ten year cycle even finishing the above two years early but would wait until the next cycle to begin production. Another might finish assessment but it is realised that it cannot finish development before the ned of the cycle so the programme is put on pause with the money going in to the pot for the next one or used on another that will be completed if an unforeseen issue can be dealt with, if extra funding were available. This is a very rough idea and Industry would have to expect that fixed price contracts, pushing more risk on to them would become the norm, but current practice, even after decades of supposed "Improvements" is not up to the job to be polite.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 21 Sep 2018, 21:31

Lord Jim wrote:A programme nay complete its assessment and development in one ten year cycle even finishing the above two years early but would wait until the next cycle to begin production.

That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. You'll have a programme team and knowledge that will evaporate if you put it on hold for two years.
Lord Jim wrote:This is a very rough idea and Industry would have to expect that fixed price contracts, pushing more risk on to them would become the norm,

So they'll just walk away. If they don't they'll be run out of business.
Lord Jim wrote:but current practice, even after decades of supposed "Improvements" is not up to the job to be polite.

Not sure that your proposal would be any better.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 21 Sep 2018, 22:31

Lord Jim wrote:This is a very rough idea and Industry would have to expect that fixed price contracts, pushing more risk on to them would become the norm, but current practice, even after decades of supposed "Improvements" is not up to the job to be polite.

Risk means money.

If the contractor is required to accept more risk then they will increase the price to MoD to reduce their exposure.

That's why MoD must adopt some of the risk of they want to receive Value for Money proposals.

SW1
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby SW1 » 22 Sep 2018, 10:19

This is another area deeply in need to a long term strategic plan. We wasted so much time and money messing about selecting a 8x8 vehicle that it appears we’re now starting to mess about with artillery options now too.

We went for boxer and that’s fine should of never left but now every single weapon system, support options needs to be developed to suit the one trump card boxer has a modular payload. The benefit of a modular system means any company can develop a payload as there is a known common interface. The benefit of having an all boxer force is a simplified logistical and engineering support effort when deployed, and in budget terms long term saving in commonality.

The army have not been good at this and generated a real hodgepodge of vehicles, if we continue this going fwd we truly are mad and deserve the mess we generate. I know boxer isn’t cheap but simply buy as many as the budget allows and keep adding year on year may take slightly longer but had we started when the Germans and Dutch did we’d off been well on our way by now and have a much more capable army.

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 833
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Sep 2018, 11:22

SW1 wrote:This is another area deeply in need to a long term strategic plan. We wasted so much time and money messing about selecting a 8x8 vehicle that it appears we’re now starting to mess about with artillery options now too.

We went for boxer and that’s fine should of never left but now every single weapon system, support options needs to be developed to suit the one trump card boxer has a modular payload. The benefit of a modular system means any company can develop a payload as there is a known common interface. The benefit of having an all boxer force is a simplified logistical and engineering support effort when deployed, and in budget terms long term saving in commonality.

The army have not been good at this and generated a real hodgepodge of vehicles, if we continue this going fwd we truly are mad and deserve the mess we generate. I know boxer isn’t cheap but simply buy as many as the budget allows and keep adding year on year may take slightly longer but had we started when the Germans and Dutch did we’d off been well on our way by now and have a much more capable army.


I don't agree that all wheeled is the way to go tracked still has its advantages even over boxer, but I do agree that the hodge podge families of vehicles needs reducing.

For me I'd go this way, all tracked ( out side of MBT ) be based on the Ajax family including a new IFV to replace the Warriors, then all wheeled be based on the boxer include the IFV version to give need fire power the strike brigade with out losing the bonus of speed giving by wheeled.

A healthy mix of these 2 families would give us a real capabilty and flexible force while massively reducing training an through life costs.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Sep 2018, 11:47

RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:This is a very rough idea and Industry would have to expect that fixed price contracts, pushing more risk on to them would become the norm, but current practice, even after decades of supposed "Improvements" is not up to the job to be polite.

Risk means money.

If the contractor is required to accept more risk then they will increase the price to MoD to reduce their exposure.

That's why MoD must adopt some of the risk of they want to receive Value for Money proposals.


I know the MoD has to accept some of the risk, but at the moment we are taking on too much out of a need to reduce costs as much as possible. UK Companies also have to learn that although they are entitled to make certain margins with regards to MoD contracts, the MoD has the option to go elsewhere and will do. UK companies must be competitive and any cost comparisons must exclude welfare and other external issues. I have argues many times that if these are part of any tender process then other Government departments need to contribute to offset the increased costs for UK sourced items. It is not the MoD's role to secure jobs in the UK or maintain a manufacturing base.

However unlike private contracts, the MoD cannot impose true penalty clauses in its contracts, relying on bonuses for Contractors if the deliver either early or on time based on the timeframe agreed in the contract.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Old RN » 22 Sep 2018, 13:51

If the UK is serious about getting combat capable/proven wheeled vehicles the South African Rooikat and the G6 would surely be wortn considering? Or am I being biased towards vehicles that came from someone actually fighting a war? :mrgreen:

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 22 Sep 2018, 14:06

Lord Jim wrote: UK Companies also have to learn that although they are entitled to make certain margins with regards to MoD contracts, the MoD has the option to go elsewhere and will do.

Everyone is UK industry is aware of this.

Or have you not noticed that the biggest British Army contracts are run or competed by General Dynamics (USA), Lockheed Martin (USA), Oshkosh (USA) Thales (France) and Rheinemetal (Germany).

Let's not forget AW bypassed for Boeing on Apache and the purchase of US airframes for various contracts.

UK companies must be competitive and any cost comparisons must exclude welfare and other external issues...

It is not the MoD's role to secure jobs in the UK or maintain a manufacturing base.

Which is a complete contradiction. You can't be competitive on cost unless you have an existing production base. That is usually dependent on the domestic order being sufficient to build at scale.

Therefore, the UK government have to support domestic order books of they want to create an internationally competitive industrial base that can drive down costs on domestic manufacture.

If you want an example of this just look at AJAX which for cost reasons was going to be Spanish build and assembly. Then UK government paid for the Support contract which included on-shoring the majority of final assembly.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 22 Sep 2018, 14:55

Lord Jim wrote:I know the MoD has to accept some of the risk, but at the moment we are taking on too much out of a need to reduce costs as much as possible.

Is the MoD controlling the risks? Does it know what risks it is taking on?
Lord Jim wrote:UK Companies also have to learn that although they are entitled to make certain margins with regards to MoD contracts, the MoD has the option to go elsewhere and will do.

Are UK companies making margins on the MoD contracts you seem to be complaining about? It's been a long time since Cost Plus was standard practice. And where will the MoD go? To foreign suppliers who are supported by their respective governments, with cost plus contracts etc.
If you follow the route you seem to be proposing, you end up having to take what is on offer. No other choices or options. You are also dependent on foreign logistic support.
Lord Jim wrote:UK companies must be competitive and any cost comparisons must exclude welfare and other external issues.

Why? the MoD isn't separate from the rest of government. Does securing your supply chain come under "other external issues"
Lord Jim wrote:I have argues many times that if these are part of any tender process then other Government departments need to contribute to offset the increased costs for UK sourced items.

It's entirely possible that you were wrong before and you're still wrong now.
Lord Jim wrote:It is not the MoD's role to secure jobs in the UK or maintain a manufacturing base.

Is it the MoD's job to secure their supply chain and supporting logistics?
Lord Jim wrote:However unlike private contracts, the MoD cannot impose true penalty clauses in its contracts, relying on bonuses for Contractors if the deliver either early or on time based on the timeframe agreed in the contract

Is that true? Why is that the case?


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest