CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The lack of ATGWs and masts in almost certainly a MoD decision. As mentioned above the former appears to be their preference for standalone platforms equipped with ATGWs rather than giving individual vehicles multiple options including the ability to engage heavy armour. As to the latter, we again as pointed out the planned replacement for the CVR(T) way back when, had a mast as one of the options that were being evaluated. In addition just because the MoD decides it does need something doesn't mean that thing is not useful and effective, improving the capabilities of a plat form so equipped. Masts seem to have become more common om platforms developed at the very end of the Cold War or after it, and those that have them find them worth having. The BA does not for its own reasons.
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I forget which one, but one of the Baltics now has ex British Army CVR(T)s and has installed Javelin launcher brackets on some of them on the Commanders cupola.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Latvia; Lithuania went a step 'up' and bought Boxers (under a different name, of course).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The maintenance logistics of having all these different armoured platforms suddenly dropped into your inventory must be of nightmare proportions..
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
For sure. But at least the CVR(T) aren't still running on petrol...
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Been thinking / reflecting on this with the benefit of 20/20hindsight googles, and I think we should have gone for a high / low mix of :Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:27In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.RunningStrong wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for
BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework"
CV90 mk 3 - to replace Warrior and CVRT -> proven and in use with several allies
Patria AMV 8x8 - to replace everything else (incl FV432) -> half the price of Boxer, does 90% of the job, could be procured in quantity
BAE Systems have partnered with AMV previously.
The MOD could invest in upgrades at Telford to assemble everything on one site, then move seamlessly into CH3
Job done.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
CV90 Mk3 would be obsolete before it even entered service with the British Army. Why waste the money?SD67 wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 11:54Been thinking / reflecting on this with the benefit of 20/20hindsight googles, and I think we should have gone for a high / low mix of :Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:27In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.RunningStrong wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for
BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework"
CV90 mk 3 - to replace Warrior and CVRT -> proven and in use with several allies
Patria AMV 8x8 - to replace everything else (incl FV432) -> half the price of Boxer, does 90% of the job, could be procured in quantity
BAE Systems have partnered with AMV previously.
The MOD could invest in upgrades at Telford to assemble everything on one site, then move seamlessly into CH3
Job done.
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I’m talking 10 years ago
Vs unmodernised Warrior to be shortly replace by nothing
Vs unmodernised Warrior to be shortly replace by nothing
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
If we’re playing hindsight procurement, I’d have recommended going back a few more years for Warrior 2000 as the IFV and Stormer for Combat reconnaissance, with the option to fit out some WR for recce tasks in support of Stormer and some Stormer for utility tasks in support of Warrior.
Maybe also some more variants of each, too.
I agree on AMV though.
Maybe also some more variants of each, too.
I agree on AMV though.
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
How much grief would that have saved.. I understand Warrior 2000 used basically a CV90 turret so it was probably low risk.
Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That or a Delco30. The Stormer Light Tank was that or an OTO Melara turret as seen on the Dardo.
Whichever, it would have made sense to use the same one on both chassis.