This is a discussion on FRES Programme - British Army within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The Financial Times is reporting that General Dynamics has won the FRES-SV (specialist vehicle). The official announcement was not due ...
The Financial Times is reporting that General Dynamics has won the FRES-SV (specialist vehicle). The official announcement was not due until the 26th of March, but apparently the MoD are scrambling to pre-empt a leak.
Quote:
BAE loses to US in £1bn army ‘Scout’ race
By Alex Barker and Sylvia Pfeifer
Published: March 12 2010 23:01 | Last updated: March 12 2010 23:01
BAE Systems has lost the race to build the British army’s next generation of “Scout” armoured vehicles, beaten by General Dynamics of the US in the competition for a contract worth more than £1bn.
The US company’s victory is a heavy blow for BAE and will put at risk jobs at the UK company’s armaments division.
Quentin Davies, defence minister, is shortly expected to name General Dynamics as the preferred bidder in the deal to build an initial 750 vehicles.
However, there will be a delay of at least a year for a planned upgrade of the Warrior armoured vehicle.
The delay to the Warrior upgrade is the result of a “funding gap” that has emerged because of the Scout procurement and some doubts over the maturity of the technology. But defence officials insist the programme will still go ahead and that the “slippage” will only be short term.
The contest to supply the armoured reconnaissance vehicles is central to the future of Britain’s armoured vehicle industry and BAE’s business.
BAE, which has already announced the closure of three land-vehicle manufacturing plants and several hundred job losses over the past year, needed to win the two contests. It might have to cut more jobs.
The company had pledged to create jobs if it won the contest by opening a site near Donnington. GD has said winning the competition would create and sustain 10,500 UK jobs. But BAE has also said it would have to take another “look at restructuring in the UK” if it failed to win the Scout contract and Warrior upgrade.
The Financial Times is reporting that General Dynamics has won the FRES-SV (specialist vehicle). The official announcement was not due until the 26th of March, but apparently the MoD are scrambling to pre-empt a leak.
slightly surprised thought CV-90 would be preferred to the ASCOD based design well both seemed like quite good desgines.
Might as well see if the official announcement different
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
An interesting development for sure and I didn't expect that after the considerable success of the CV90 (?) and the political clout of BAE in their home country.
We will see if the deal gets smoothly through.
Firn
________________
"first patience she was a.., she had her left leg completely blown up, her right leg was into a mush, it really wasn't really much left but muscle. her left arm was gone, and it was bandaged up,... she was one of the most beautiful girls I have ever seen."
slightly surprised thought CV-90 would be preferred to the ASCOD based design well both seemed like quite good desgines.
Might as well see if the official announcement different
x2.
I've always preferred the BAE submission for several reasons, industrial (in terms of the longevity of overall armour production in the UK), economic (keeping British pounds in British pockets), and in capability terms. The CV90 (even if it is only the chasis, and a shortened and lowered verion of the MkIII at that) seems a far more mature, not to mention proven design than ASCOD2.
I should have stressed that GD winning is currently just a rumour (which I also heard through someone before it was in the FT), but I have a regrettable feeling it will prove accurate.
If so, it seems the British tax-payer, and the British arms industry has lost out.
Perhaps we should have gone the same protectionist route as the KC-X...
I've always preferred the BAE submission for several reasons, industrial (in terms of the longevity of overall armour production in the UK), economic (keeping British pounds in British pockets), and in capability terms. The CV90 (even if it is only the chasis, and a shortened and lowered verion of the MkIII at that) seems a far more mature, not to mention proven design than ASCOD2.
I should have stressed that GD winning is currently just a rumour (which I also heard through someone before it was in the FT), but I have a regrettable feeling it will prove accurate.
If so, it seems the British tax-payer, and the British arms industry has lost out.
Perhaps we should have gone the same protectionist route as the KC-X...
You never know could end up in political limbo like FRES UT. Could be incorrect but as part of the submission they had to be bulit in the UK its just a bit of a shame that it isn't under BAE.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
You never know could end up in political limbo like FRES UT. Could be incorrect but as part of the submission they had to be bulit in the UK its just a bit of a shame that it isn't under BAE.
Unlikely, the SV is needed too desperately to be delayed. But i've heard Warrior is going to be delayed by a year. If GD do win BAE will be doubly annoyed.
And GD are promising UK assembly, but it still wont support UK jobs as well as the BAE solution would have.
I preferred CV90 as well. Forgive me if i'm wrong but has ASCOD seen any combat? At least CV90 is combat proven.
You never know could end up in political limbo like FRES UT. Could be incorrect but as part of the submission they had to be bulit in the UK its just a bit of a shame that it isn't under BAE.
Not this time, I don't think. It's the Army's No1 procurement priority (the Scout, that is), and is now so massively in the media spotlight that industry and government alike can't afford any further cock-ups.
The Utility requirement on the other hand... well that's just the next big saga-in-waiting! (again)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim901
And GD are promising UK assembly, but it still wont support UK jobs as well as the BAE solution would have.
I preferred CV90 as well. Forgive me if i'm wrong but has ASCOD seen any combat? At least CV90 is combat proven.
GD signed an MoU with the DSG last month, promising to create jobs at Donnington, and have a target of 80% UK construction and components. The irony is, that that 80% must surely come from existing BAE contracters (it's not as though we're overwhelmed with domestic armour manufacturers).
I originally delayed posting this thread, as I assumed it was a classic journalist mistake of reading between the lines and assuming the the MoU meant GD had won.
Fraser, the concern is sustaing jobs, and sustaining a UK armour production capability over the long term. GDUK still has its masters overseas, and we'll still see a gigantic amount of tax-payers' money cross the atlantic. It's not that this is bad in emploment terms for the short term, but it's not the best, and nor does it represent the best in terms of the longevity I mentioned earlier. Do BAE have a monopoly? This is one area where they don't, this is a new vehicle, and there's nothing like it in either GD or BAE's shelves, and I struggle to think of any overseas vehicle which would closely suit the role.
Not this time, I don't think. It's the Army's No1 procurement priority (the Scout, that is), and is now so massively in the media spotlight that industry and government alike can't afford any further cock-ups.
The Utility requirement on the other hand... well that's just the next big saga-in-waiting! (again)
GD signed an MoU with the DSG last month, promising to create jobs at Donnington, and have a target of 80% UK construction and components. The irony is, that that 80% must surely come from existing BAE contracters (it's not as though we're overwhelmed with domestic armour manufacturers).
I originally delayed posting this thread, as I assumed it was a classic journalist mistake of reading between the lines and assuming the the MoU meant GD had won.
Fraser, the concern is sustaing jobs, and sustaining a UK armour production capability over the long term. GDUK still has its masters overseas, and we'll still see a gigantic amount of tax-payers' money cross the atlantic. It's not that this is bad in emploment terms for the short term, but it's not the best, and nor does it represent the best in terms of the longevity I mentioned earlier. Do BAE have a monopoly? This is one area where they don't, this is a new vehicle, and there's nothing like it in either GD or BAE's shelves, and I struggle to think of any overseas vehicle which would closely suit the role.
A couple of points here, we talk about UK industry being transferred to overseas masters, well just look at BAE, it owns a large portion of the US's land systems manufactures, but you don't hear about the US barking on about overseas masters! Regardless of who wins proprietary knowledge will be transferred, UK manufacturing will be maintained and supporting supply chains built using local subcontractors.
The FRES SV contract has not been CONFIRMED yet, and BAE are returning to the table with a revised proposal, which will include a larger UK manufacturing share. Two reasons why GD supposedly came out on top - more UK jobs guaranteed and ASCOD has a greater potential for future amour enhancements because it has a higher maximum operating weight over CV90. The last thing the army wants is to buy a vehicle and find it unable to deal with future IED threats because it is restricted by weight (unable to host additional theatre specific armour packages) - we will end up with a situation akin to Viking, having to buy Warthog because the latter could be loaded up with a additional armour (unlike the former) without impeding its performance.
The UK's experience in A-Stan and Iraq has moved the gaol posts - reinforcing the need for protection and mobility (all terrain tracked, not wheeled vehicles), hence we have seen so many delays / changes with FRES.
Can't say I'd be that bothered if ASCOD won, just so long as we actually get them, and in the numbers required. The 1 year slip on Warrior ELP was somewhat expected with that new gun and the additional armour revisions.
Can't say I'd be that bothered if ASCOD won, just so long as we actually get them, and in the numbers required. The 1 year slip on Warrior ELP was somewhat expected with that new gun and the additional armour revisions.
Are you referring to the CTWS?
If so is there any recent news on that front?
I think the CTWS 40mm has a lot of potential. And would appreciate any recent news or info you might have.
Are you referring to the CTWS?
If so is there any recent news on that front?
I think the CTWS 40mm has a lot of potential. And would appreciate any recent news or info you might have.
cheers
rb
CTWS is mandated regardless of who wins, it will equip the new scout and eventually Warrior.
The update to Warrior may slip a year or two as they are not required in A-STAN, recent MARP purchases have removed the need. However CVRT vehicles are a brigade asset and much treasured for their work in supporting battle group operations (hence the need for FRES-SV now). CVRT's have supported infantry units and acted in thier traditional role providing the recce screen for the Danes Leopards. The current CVRT is too small and needs replacing ASAP.
ASCOD2 - according to GDUK's web-site - will weigh 34 - 40 tonnes fully kitted-out. So what is the point of the A400M if it will only be able to lift a stripped-down vehicle (with the rest of the kit filling-out another EuroTurkey) ...?
ASCOD2 - according to GDUK's web-site - will weigh 34 - 40 tonnes fully kitted-out. So what is the point of the A400M if it will only be able to lift a stripped-down vehicle (with the rest of the kit filling-out another EuroTurkey) ...?
Protection is the name of the game these days, fitting FRES-SV in a A400 is a long expired pipe dream for the RAF, that particular caveat was blown away by IED attacks in A-Stan & Iraq. Less of an issue for the UK anyway as they will have seven C17's by the end of 2010, and I'm betting my bottom dollar that who ever wins the next election will order at least two more (three flights of three, plus one reserve/training) at the expense of A400 numbers.
Protection is the name of the game these days, fitting FRES-SV in a A400 is a long expired pipe dream for the RAF, that particular caveat was blown away by IED attacks in A-Stan & Iraq. Less of an issue for the UK anyway as they will have seven C17's by the end of 2010, and I'm betting my bottom dollar that who ever wins the next election will order at least two more (three flights of three, plus one reserve/training) at the expense of A400 numbers.
True air portability is something used on very very limited basis on decent sized kit i.e not landys or BV's, being able to lift 20 odd FRES-SV was never really likely even before Iraq and A-Stan, as that was one of the major factors in killing FCS program.
In regards to the C-17 their was something ages ago which gave tail numbers for 8 UK C-17's and since we have 7 already their should be at least one more to be ordered.
Should be interesting to see if the FT has got it right on Friday
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
