General Dynamics wins FRES contract

HAVE YOUR SAY

If the Americans will not buy our US101 Merlins or A330 KC45s, why do we allow them to walk all over us? Why is the UK elite so feeble?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

I am afraid the MOD selected the wrong one, mainly for a general election reason, and no doubt that the winner is the cheapest.
The BAE contender is combat proven, serving many armies, the CV family is most proberly, the finest tracked combat vehicle in the world, at this moment, the General Dynamics model won on cost and jobs only, the military wanted the BAE variant, that is a fact.This Labour Government, shows money is more important than British military lives. This Government has shown jobs are not that important in the past,no doubt a general Election around the corner changed thier minds why did this Government select the Mastiffs, Ridgebacks and other such vehicles, built in America, when there was a second generaton armoured vehicle, the Universal Ranger, built in Britain,far better than the previous said why, because it was too expensive.
Same old labour
john - iom

I seriously don't get it?

It would be much more cost effective to upgrade Warrior and it's component parts than buy ASCOD. Incidently the ASCOD vehicle is a rather cheap product and basic in it's design. Whilst I agree it can be upgraded I do feel we have been awarded a lemon.

A cheap..lightweight armoured fighting vehicle that is totally unsuited to modern warfare where armour is life.
James - GB

i would like to make just 4 points on this subject.
1, will they arrive on time, and not years late.
2, will the price remain stable, or will it go through the roof.
3, will they work and not break down.
4, will the goverment see this through.or nock it on the head . after we have spent millions.
[sadly like a lot of MOD bought itmes we will have to wait and see.]]
criss of herts - london

@John. You have hit the nail on the head with your comment.
The CV family is much better suited for modern warfare. As I have indicated before ASCOD is an off the shelf design and very cheap.

James - GB

The BAE vehicle is off the shelf and proven to be one of the best in the world, the General Dynamics vehicle is at least two years off production and is only paperware. Our troops in theatre need these vehicles NOW. I think this decision was made for two political reasons -
1. To kick BAE because of the fraud allegations.
2. The Labour government does not want to spend money on the disenfranchised military before the election.
Neil Blues - Ryde, UK

I think there is a lot of misinformation (not to say conspiracy theories) about the choice of vehicle here.

First of all this is, in ballance, about UK jobs - BAE simpley couldn't guarentee the swath of jobs that GD could...

And on suitability, this is a SCOUT vehicle - by and large it needs mobility and speed.

The current obsession with up-armouring is a 'wrap in cotton wool' mentality that ignores the simple fact that real soldiering is a dangerous job. Yes we could buy lumbering armoured turtles - but how effective as a scout would they actually be?

The current pragmatic approach of the MoD in buying a variety of vehicles of differing levels of arnour based on the role they will undertake is the most sensible.
Milgeek - Yorkshire, UK

This is political, the goverment doesn't want to offend the mighty americans...
Steven murphy - Southampton/UK

Can someone please explain to me why this decision comes down to my country "walking all over you" or "offending the mighty Americans"? It's my understanding that this vehicle will be designed and built in Britain. Is it because a British branch of an American owned company won? You don't hear us complain whenever BAE America wins a contract. That's an American branch of a British owned company. So let me ask all of you a question. Are the C130Js, C-17s, chinooks, etc... all garbage? Did you buy them in order to not offend us? If you think the ASCOD is not fit for the purpose, then that's one thing. To bash my country because an American owned company beat out a British company is just pathetic in my opinion. You all have yourselves a great day.
Mark - Virginia

@ Milgeek.

The vehicle in question will weigh around 20+ tons. Whilst it is classified as a scout vehicle it's weight is similar to that of Warriors.
I agree that the 'Recce' role is often the most dangerous in the Army. Yet these vehicles are not lightweight by any means of the word and will be uparmoured despite their original intended role.
James - GB

Dear Mark, of course the C-130J & C-17 are good aircraft, but so are the A330/KC45 & US101 Merlin. If you want us to buy your kit, then it is polite to buy some of ours in return.
America will be bankrupt by 2030 unless it starts to pay grown up taxes ( & yes Britain will be too unless our useless politicians stop wasting money).
If a poor Britain wants to buy influence with the new "big boys" perhaps we should start buying Chinese & Indian kit?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

Mark - Virginia

One understands your upset perhaps Mark you are unaware that in order for BAE to operate in the US and compete for US military operational equipment requirements/contracts the company had to agree to US govt security stipulations that no senior management and research posts in its American 'branch' could be occupied by British staff. All positions had to be occupied by Americans. Further, project information cannot be deceminated to the parent company in the UK. So if we 'Brits' seem a little 'pathetic' at times in our attitude towards your country perhaps its a reflection of 'negative' attitudes held in your country of the UK.

Its always worthwhile understanding the other persons position just a little, yes?
Clive - West Mids

Mr. Hartley - I agree with you sir about the KC45 being a good aircraft. The USAF did pick it as a replacement tanker but the GAO?? (I may be wrong) overruled the decision due to a Boeing complaint. I don't believe that we should pick Boeing just because its American, I think the winner should be the company who provides the best quality for the cheapest price. I disagree that we should buy your kit just to be polite. We have been accused of protectionism in the tanker deal, but from my point of view, European gov. has done the same. EADS' A400M's engines are a good example. There's also the WTO ruling that EADS has been received illegal subsidies to prop it up. I think the only good kit the Indians and Chinese have is the kit they buy from Russia. Imho, if Britain was to not buy American, the only kit worth buying would be European.

Clive - Thank you, I am aware of our transfer of technology stipulations and quite honestly, I completely agree with them. I take it you have read about the fine my gov. made BAE pay (as well as your gov.) for bribery and transferring our technology to third parties in eastern Europe. BAE got off easy in my opinion. That little incident probably didn't help the UK's chances of getting the JSF codes I'd imagine. I was stationed in your country for 3 years at RAF Lakenheath (East midlands) and quite frankly, English negative attitudes towards us vastly outweighs any negative feelings I've observed from anyone in my country towards Britain, so I don't know where you get your "reflection" argument from. As far as understanding your position, from what I've gathered from my time living in your country, it seems to me that some Brits are peeved because you used to have such a strong influence in the world and now you don't. My country gets these negative feelings because we took your place. A lot of Brits rationalize their negative attitudes by blaming it on our foreign policy or whatever else they can think of at the time. It's that sense of not mattering that irks British nerves Clive. Personally, I think that's why so many commentors talk so negatively about the MoD. I think a lot of anger gets directed at the MoD for downsizing the military, and that just makes some feel that their country is even less important on the global stage. Directing that anger at my country is what I think is pathetic. Britain is important, as it is one of the few countries that actually puts its troops where its mouth is. I feel that directing your anger at my country is unwarranted however. Look at the C-17s for example. The USAF let Britain, Canada, and Australia cut in line and take C-17s meant for the USAF which allowed them to wait months instead of years for delivery. Didn't PM Brown get flown around in an American helicopter during one of his visits to Aphghanistan?
Mark - Virginia

As an SME we have worked on the fully working LM UK ct40 turret fitted to the warrior prototype and their attitude to getting the job done is refreshing. This project will be on time, on budget and made in the UK. What more could we ask for?
Phil - northampton

Dear Mark, do you remember the Lockheed bribery scandals of the 1970s? Makes BAE look smallbeer by comparison. What of the original B767 tanker order. Did not a senior American official end up in trouble for that?
On my few visits your side of the pond, Americans have been kind to me, so I have no interest in badmouthing the US, just for the sake of it.
We both live in glass houses & we can both throw stones.
America is interested in American jobs. Fair enough. I just wish British officials were interested in British jobs.
China & India are on the up. The best Chinese fighter used to be a Mig19 copy, but now it is the J-10. What will they have in 20 years? The Indian Brahmos missile is way ahead of the Harpoon.
In 1900 the Royal Navy was the most powerful force on the planet. By 1945 that was no longer true.
In 2000 the US armed forces were the greatest on the planet. Still think they will be in 2045?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

Having read through the various posts on this thread I agree with some points from both the Brits and agree with some of Marks comments too.

I have no problems buying US kit, i think its usually better than our overpriced, overated, years late bought because its British.
I fully understand if the US spends billions on stealth for example then because of the so called special relationship BAE goes and wants to sell it on.

What pisses me off is the way American foreign policy is reflected by us, and thats not having a go at Mark, his country does what it wants and feels is right, its our politicians that I reserve my anger for! I disagree with American policy towards the Israel, Palestine problem, for example.
Yet, if it comes down to the dirty stuff, I'd rather be in the trenches with the US than Europe.Whenever the shit hits the fan its always the same few countries that do the fighting, while Europe buries its head in the sand.

Having said that, when, as Mark says, Britain was a world leader, the US was happy to link with us because it wanted our empire for its use, for bases. Now, if little Britain is no longer of use to some in the USA I find that sad.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

Back on topic chaps!

FRES is rubbish remember?
James - GB

What the article and a lot of posters miss out is that ASCOD 2 (the SV) is virtually a new vehicle. It weighs in at 34 tonnes with expansion possible to c. 42 tonnes ( the engine is rated at 45 tonnes). Believe me, I thought CV90 MkIII would be the better vehicle but if you look at just two comparisons ...crew CV 3+7, ASCOD 2 3+8 and the rear of both vehicles with ASCOD having a somewhat larger door for quick exit ... there is a starter for ten!! The only problem that I can see is that its going to be a trifle large for C130J's and A400M. But that, for me, is not a problem as it means we need a good amphib group, supported by a carrier group and combat ships. Viva ASCOD!!
Norman - UK

@ Norman. ASCOD is still pointless. It is overweight and cannot be transported by the A400M. It is meant to be a 'scout' vehicle but weighs more than Warrior.

It would be far cheaper to upgrade Warrior with a new turret, powerpack and drive train than to design a completely new vehicle that is actually no better on the whole.
James - GB

If you want an air transportable vehicle, start with the Stormer family of vehicles. They grew out of the Scorpion family. Of course Stormer would need improvements to IED protection, but even with that it should still be transportable by C-130J.
Silly me, Stormer is designed & built in Britain, so of course it will not be ordered by our great & good who like to show off how "International" they are.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

Its a little harsh to be criticising the US with Mark taking the brunt. The ASCOD while under the GD banner is primarily a Spainish/Austrian built vehicle (Pizarro and Ulan). That vehicle will be upgraded to make ASCOD 2. For me it was simple - GD offered a cheaper solution which the MoD just couldn't refuse. UK investment was marginal (Newcastle jobs or South Wales jobs - all amounted to the same figures wise).

It was budget and budget alone.

On the US vs UK debate. As an ex serving soldier of 14 years i'm happy we continue to buy US kit. It's the best 90% of the time whether you like Americans or not!
Darren - UK

Darren, I agree with you and Mark I can only apologise if your stay at RAF Lakenheath was a poor one and for any Yank bashing comments made by my fellow countrymen. I have been in the British Army for 24 years and worked with the American Forces (Army and USAF) on many occasions and got on extremely well with them. I am an original "borrower" from Op Granby. As an experienced Recce soldier, both Close Recce at Battlegroup level and Formation Recce either the ASCOD or CV90 with the growth potential in those equipments would be fine by me. I have worked on 1960's vintage CVRT, with a gun that would struggle to pierce wet tissue paper at 30 yards and armour a kid with a catapult could penetrate, because the chassis had no growth potential in it. GD have only been given preferred bidder status, the vehicle will undergo a thorough evaluation at ATDU, conducted by Officers and soldiers who will ultimately work on the equipment before a final order is placed.
Rob - Telford / UK / Army

Does this mean the british army are not getting the piranha v, vechile?
Neal kennedy - glasgow/uk