A bright future with FRES

06 April 2010

Dr Sandy Wilson, president and managing director of General Dynamics UK, explains why he believes the ASCOD SV is the right choice for the British Army, the MoD and Britain

The British Government's decision to select General Dynamics UK as the preferred supplier for British Army's Specialist Vehicle (SV) was made primarily on the basis of capability. As Quentin Davies MP, the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support said on awarding the contract, "It was an easy decision… General Dynamics won on every count, from performance to price." This decision is a significant one as the MoD has clearly demonstrated that it wishes to work with companies that will supply the right tools for the job.

While this decision secures the best protection and capability the British Army has ever had from an armoured fighting vehicle, it also secures the best financial deal for the British taxpayer, over 10,600 jobs for skilled British workers and on top of all that it secures the future of the British tank industry with 85 per cent of the work by value carried out in the UK.

The British soldiers who will be using ASCOD SV were our first priority in its design. Not only do they deserve the best protection possible to do the dangerous jobs they do on our behalf, but they need the best vehicle; one that is reliable, highly capable, highly fightable, easy and safe to operate, and comfortable to work in.

ASCOD SV sets new standards in all these areas.

The best protection

The most important thing to ensure was that British soldiers would have the best protection not only against the threats of today, but also against those of the next 30 years. ASCOD SV was tested to the highest levels of mine and IED threats currently being faced by our forces in Afghanistan as late as February of this year, providing protection against the very latest generation of roadside explosive threats. In its base configuration, ASCOD SV passed these tests with flying colours.

In addition, as the threats faced by our forces evolve over time, ASCOD SV will be able to evolve its response. This key capability is thanks to the vehicle being engineered from the outset to grow its load-bearing capability up to a new class record of 42 tonnes.

By being able to operate up to 42 tonnes, ASCOD SV will be able to add the right armour or on-board technology to meet whatever is thrown at it, protecting its precious cargo, our soldiers.

It will also be capable of supporting the heaviest variants in the SV programme such as Direct Fire and the Bridge Layer whenever they are required by the customer.

This load-bearing capability has been guaranteed by the clever combination of a modern but proven engine - the MTU 8V diesel engine - and the Renk 256B transmission that is rated up to 45 tonnes in a Puma armoured vehicle. This combination is good for the thirty year life span and the breadth of the SV programme.

The ergonomics of the ASCOD SV also set new standards, making the life of the user more comfortable. ASCOD SV not only features General Dynamics UK's latest generation of its unique electronic architecture that saves both weight and space inside the vehicle by replacing heavy, bulky wiring looms with a thin, lightweight plug-and-play bus bar system which makes power provision more accessible, but its overall design philosophy has been one of maximising space in order to improve fightability.

This philosophy is also evidenced in the design of the Scout variant's turret. It has a wider diameter turret ring and larger hatches than any competitor, giving more room for gunner and commander inside while allowing them to enter and exit the vehicle without the need to shed their own protective armour before doing so – a very tangible benefit for today's troops.

The best financial deal

The Government, and by extension the taxpayer, also benefits from the choice of ASCOD SV. By taking the common base platform as our starting point rather than focusing on one specific variant, General Dynamics UK has designed a capability that lasts for the 30 year life cycle of such a vehicle with growth potential of up to 42 tonnes without the need for a costly refit. The common base platform will also allow for significant economies of scale when the MoD procures further Recce blocks of the SV capability.

The initial Recce Block 1 consists of four different vehicles – the Scout reconnaissance vehicle, a Protected Mobility vehicle, plus Recovery and Repair vehicles. But these are only four of a potential 20 SV variants which will sit on the ASCOD SV common base platform, should further Recce Blocks be procured.

In addition, by ensuring the security or creation of over 10,600 jobs in the UK, General Dynamics UK is doing its bit to ensure higher employment which leads to more money coming into the Exchequer.

ASCOD SV is also good for UK plc. 80 per cent of the value of ASCOD SV's manufacture will be in the UK, benefiting a supply chain of companies around the UK. In addition, this platform will be attractive to other nations wishing to upgrade their armoured fighting vehicle capability and so has excellent export revenue potential for Britain.

Best for British jobs

Skilled workers in the British tank and armoured fighting vehicle industry will also benefit from General Dynamics UK being awarded this contract. This contract will bring jobs to eight different regions of the UK, will safeguard the future of the Government's Defence Services Group in Donnington, and will secure or add over 10,600 jobs for skilled British workers over the lifetime of the programme.
Wales will be one of the first regions to benefit as it is the main operational base of General Dynamics UK. General Dynamics UK already employs over 200 people directly on the FRES SV programme. Now that it has been selected to deliver ASCOD SV the company expects to add over 200 more jobs to the SV project team in the short term and potentially another 500 in the long term.

The West Midlands will also be a big winner. On 9 February 2010, General Dynamics UK announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the MoD's Defence Services Group (DSG) to transfer Assembly, Integration and Test for full-rate production of ASCOD SV to DSG's Donnington facility should the company secure the contract. This activity is now expected to secure over 600 jobs in the Donnington and Telford area.

The East of England, where Lockheed Martin UK INSYS - the turret provider for the SV Scout variant - is based, will also benefit. Over 500 jobs will be divided between Lockheed Martin and its own supply chain.

Finally, General Dynamics UK's ASCOD SV supply chain comprises key suppliers in Scotland, the North of England, the North West, the East Midlands and the South of England as well as additional suppliers in Wales and the West Midlands. Overall jobs secured or added in this supply chain are expected to total 6,000 direct jobs and a further 3,000 indirect jobs.
Through-life support roles for the SV programme are expected to add over 200 long-term highly-skilled jobs to the total.

Now that the SV bid is the preferred supplier, the real work begins in partnership with the MoD delivery team and DSG. The choice of ASCOD SV by the government will sustain the British tank industry for future generations, and we will build a demonstration phase fleet that will show that British tank building skills are alive and well in the Welsh Valleys. We will then build a fleet of SV vehicles that will provide the best protection for British soldiers, as well as the long-term value and the best military capability for the UK government and the MoD.

HAVE YOUR SAY

06 April 2010

"85 per cent of the work by value carried out in the UK." ?

Which bits then? Apart from the Spanish chassis, the German turret and engine, the Austrian transmission and the half-French weapon system?

And 10,600 UK jobs?

Say 50k per job (including pension and social costs) and ten years for the meat of the programme (the manufacturing phase). That's more than £5bn. Before design, development, overheads, materials and manufacturing, profit etc etc.

For a £4bn programme.
Surly Bonds - London

06 April 2010

It will be late and overpriced as it is still sitting under a paperweight right now.

BAE's design however is already out there and combat proven.
James - GB

07 April 2010

Do we smell some sort of intercontinental 'bung' here?

Perhaps not in the shape of a large wad of notes, but there are other ways of rewarding failed Ministers and their affiliated cronies.

National pride seems to have flown out of the window and to hell with the consequences.
Joatmojo - Loughborough

07 April 2010

HOLD ON- 'On the 9th of February this year General Dynamics and DSG signed a partnering agreement that would see a substantial amount of work on the FRES Specialist Vehicle programme being carried out at DSG’s Donnington site. The DSG is a UK government trading fund owned by the secretary of state for defence.'
So it seems BAE tried to win a contract with the government against a company that had a partnership with the Government?
Perhaps not a fair fight?.
Steve - UK

07 April 2010

A 42 ton ASCOD? Surely we need something that can travel by C-130J or at least an A400M? How would a 42 ton ASCOD guard the Falklands? It would sink into the bog, surely? The Stormer would have been a lighter, BRITISH vehicle to upgrade & uparmour, but then no foreign "jollies" doing that.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

28 May 2010

Why not admit that the so-called ASCOD is an Austrian product? The German folk of central Europe don't sell of their industry to buy holiday homes on Bermuda. We can't buy British because British industry has been sold off by the directors. Golden handshakes all round, eh?
Ja - Hyde, Cheshire

27 July 2010

Pointless waste of cash.

Someone tell me what ASCOD can do that an upgraded Warrior cannot?
James - GB

27 October 2010

The CV90 FRES would have been the prefered vehicle for the Army. To late BAE offered to move production from Sweden to Newcastle, if they had decided to do that earlier with the garanteed jobs in the North East, I think the Combat Proven CV-90 would have been the clear winner.
Rob Smith - Telford

28 February 2011

John Hartley raises a very important point.

If this vehicle cannot be moved by C130J or A400M then it is a complete failure!

The "effect" wont be very "rapid" if you cannot airlift the bloody thing there.

A light vehicle with modular armour to suit the situation is required not a shiny new warrior!
JTAC - RAF

07 March 2011

JTAC - RAF

None of the vehicles entered into the competition could be carried by C130J or A400M. C-17 should be able to carry three FRES SV depending on its configeration.

The 42-tonne figure is its growth factor, the vehicle in its current form comes in at 28 tonnes.
Rob - Telford

08 March 2011

JTAC - RAF

"A light vehicle with modular armour to suit the situation is required not a shiny new warrior!"

What we need is a vehicle to do the specific jobs laid down for FRES SV. You don't neccesarily want it light if you can penetrate it with pop gun. Trust me I have seen what EFP's do to a "Light" Scimitar.

It all boils down to the three main criteria doesn't it Protection, Mobility, Firepower, and what you want the vehicle to do, as a former Recce Soldier I would have liked something slightly bigger and better protected than the Scimitar, but still fast and agile with a half decent gun, the ASCOD in the Recce role looks like it will tick all of those boxes (so would CV-90). As a light tank will it have enough armour, (people still tend to treat light tanks as proper tanks and put them in harms way). However one of the critical factor you have mentioned, the weight, it needs to be air transportable, it was never going to fit inside a C-130J (16-tonne limit), they would have liked it to go in an A400M (24-tonne limit), so we will have to rely on the six c-17's to move it around.
Rob - Telford

16 March 2011

I still argue that all of these potential FRES vehicles are a horrible flop if they are not light enough to be deployed by C-130 or A400M.

My understanding is that the point of FRES is to give us a Stryker like capability that can be moved quickly to theater and will be able to deal with most threat vehicles short of an MBT (addition of an ATG missile or main gun system could help here too). I would argue that extra bolt on ERA, side skirts etc. could be flown in seperately and fitted at the APOD. The most important feature must be to have the most efficient sensor to shooter cycle, if you can see him and shoot him first then your lack of armour needent be a problem. An advantage of the Stryker concept is its ability to share data with other FF to close that sensor shooter loop.

No one is disputing the fact that an EFP will open up most light vehicles like a tin can but perhaps the FRES isnt the most suitable concept for the streets of Iraq. FRES would be the wrong vehicle here as warrior and challenger were too. Counter insurgency operations require different tools and in terms of mechanised vehicles the order of the day is an MRAP type, the austailian Bushmaster being one of the best examples I have seen.

Similarly an MRAP would be of limited use during a conventional force on force engagement and as with Telic there is a tranition from warfighting to counter insurgency. Your heavy MRAP vehs can follow on by sea with a subsequent brigade.

The point of FRES should be to give us the ability to deploy a spearhead armoured force to an unexpected place with speed and surprise (TALO or Para) when rapid effect can give you a crucial strategic advantage. That force must have the pre-requisite protection, mobility and firepower to handle the threat or the operation is a no go.

If we try to make FRES all things to all people it will fail at its core purpose. Again lack of joint thinking, direction and weak specification from MOD combines with industry trying to fit their square peg in a round hole to make a profit! Its the Army that will have to deal with the consequences and the Taxpayer that foots the bloated bill.
JTAC - RAF

16 March 2011

Looking at my last post from a different point of view perhaps its not the vehicle thats the problem?

Mabey if we chinned off the A400M and bought C-17 in its place we could effectivley airlift our Army.

Interestingly USAF special operations command is now recieving delivery of new MC-130J Combat Shadow Hercs. A relatively small fleet of these to suppliment the C-17(mabey a gunship variant too) would be an excellent investment for UKSF.

Starting to sound like a Boeing salesman though.
JTAC - RAF

17 March 2011

JTAC - RAF

One of the issues with FRES is the common chassis for a multitude of jobs syndrome. FRES SV is not only a Light Tank for the Spearhead forces, it is supposed to provide the new Scout vehicle to replace Scimitar, plus all of the other variants, Command Vehicle, APC, Armoured Recovery Vehicle, ATGW Missile Vehicle, both ASCOD and CV90 give the Armoured Forces both Medium Recce and Close Recce the tools they need to do there job effectively, as you have said, the vehicle has grown that much only the C-17 will be able to carry the Light Tank version.

Personally I would like us to have a squadron of at least 10-12 C-17's, backed up by C130J initially followed by the A400M, that way you would still be able to deploy the FRES SV Light Tank in numbers.
Rob - Telford

18 March 2011

I disagree on the A400M mate, we should have steered away from this earlier.

It just going to be another expensive euro-cluster!

An increased C-17 fleet could handle anything that is required for conventional strategic and tactical airlift.

A very small fleet of new build Combat Shadows could handle to special operations that the C-17 is too big for and we could mabey get a few gunships to boot but unfortunatley thats pie in the sky
JTAC - RAF

18 March 2011

JTAC - RAF

To be honest I don't know enough about the A400M, other than it keeps getting put back by Airbus because the A380 is more profitable for them at the moment.

Looking at the "wish list" for the aircraft, on paper it looks like it will be quite a capable aircraft, then again, which aircraft on paper doesn't?

The issue with FRES SV, no matter which variant, it will only be transportable by C-17 which means as we have both mentioned a larger fleet of these superb aircraft.

The ASCOD in all variants for the roles the British Army want it for has to be that weight and after seeing the Stryker first hand I'm glad we are looking at a tracked, heavier vehicle as a light tank.
Rob - Telford

22 June 2012

it would be better for Ascod 2 AFV Fres to have Rafaels Armor - Aspro Hybrid / P passive+Insensitive reactive armor + Active Protection System ( Trophy ) n Rhreinmetalls Hybrid Lance Turret RWS + co axial Anti Armor Missile ( Ingwe/ Spike) + MG incorporated present design for beter protection n firepower! Cannon - Bushmaster Mk 2/ 3 or new Rowan Mauser 35 mm w/ frangible rounds!!
chiong clayton - ozamis city Philippines