Graeme Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 BBC are reporting that GD have been awarded the contract for the Army's new 'light tank' - by which I suspect they mean the Stryker lookalike FRES scout vehicle? Poor BBC getting all confused 'cos its replacing Scimitar which has tracks so naturally the replacement must have tracks as well... Have you noticed the BBC never misses any key information about so-called celebrities, but when they dip their toes into the serious world everything goes wrong (Grumpy Old Man mode now off, lol) Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 If it has tracks it's a "tank". If it has wheels it's an "armoured car". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 General Dynamics say they hoped most of the tank will be built in the UK - presumably like Kraft hoped to keep the Cadbury factory in Somerdale open... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadders Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 General Dynamics say they hoped most of the tank will be built in the UK - presumably like Kraft hoped to keep the Cadbury factory in Somerdale open... Or Coors keeping Bass's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 here's the BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8580266.stm and here's GD UK's info http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/FRES/default.asp Not being an AFV person to me it says 'tank' cos it has tracks? Is it any good? Do the US use it? MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz greenwood Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Looks like a Super Bradley to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share Posted March 22, 2010 Looks like a Super Bradley to me! Well, I apologise to the BBC, since it does have tracks! I thought it was a rehash of the Piranha that was selected last year. In fact this is simply an update of the Spanish Pizarro/Austrian Uhlan AFV isn't it - the GD info does say its based on a proven European design Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 In fact this is simply an update of the Spanish Pizarro/Austrian Uhlan AFV isn't it - the GD info does say its based on a proven European design Yes, the BAE submission was also based on an existing design (One of the caveats I beleive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So it's a Warrior/Scimitar/Scorpion replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fmk.6john Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Looks like it to me Mish. Regards, JB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstore Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Why did they choose this one and not the BAE/Hägglunds/Bofors CV 90? In my opinion it might be the best veichle out theretoday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPerx Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Yep. 500 British jobs go in Newcastle as BAe Systems lost out. Did any one else make a link between Hoon boasting on Dispatches about his links with US Arms companies and this quiet little announcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 A more fundamental question: what in the hell does "Future Rapid Effects System" actually mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmatthewbacon Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) A more fundamental question: what in the hell does "Future Rapid Effects System" actually mean? ...well "damage" has become too value-laden, as in "collateral damage", so now we have the less "judgemental" effects. Effects could be good or bad; damage is just so last Gulf War, darlings ;-P It's a new device, that will be available in the next few years, for causing effects quickly - or possibly it moves around quickly between bouts of causing effects... bestest, M. Edited March 23, 2010 by cmatthewbacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 'o' probe Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If its the right system and the best out there then it does not matter who has won the contract. You will find in this day and age nothing is truly American, British or otherwise. Its a global parts bin. For once it would be nice to see an equipment programme delivered on time and on budget and with enough of it to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So 42 tons is a "light tank", is it? That's it, my diet is officially over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstore Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If its the right system and the best out there then it does not matter who has won the contract. You will find in this day and age nothing is truly American, British or otherwise. Its a global parts bin. For once it would be nice to see an equipment programme delivered on time and on budget and with enough of it to do the job. But is it the best? Or only the cheapest? I would like to know why they did chose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 But is it the best? Or only the cheapest? I would like to know why they did chose it. You'll never get an honest answer... Asking a politician is pointless, as they have an estranged relationship with the truth at the best of times, particularly if it involved someone's back pocket being lined with money. But that's leading to a political discussion, so I'll zip it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Séan Pádraig Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 But is it the best? Or only the cheapest? I would like to know why they did chose it. It like the hurdles the USA placed on Airbus for the new aircraft. The US is a paradox, they espouse capitalism and enterprise yet exercise fierce protectionism. Europe give in too easy by playing the game more fairly and ofton loosing out as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) You'll never get an honest answer... Asking a politician is pointless, as they have an estranged relationship with the truth at the best of times, particularly if it involved someone's back pocket being lined with money. But that's leading to a political discussion, so I'll zip it There is in fact no correct answer to a question like this. Ask either company and they'll be able to prove (not merely claim) theirs is the best, for a given value of "best". Ask the soldier operating a twenty-year-old example and he'll tell you a thousand reasons why it's a heap of cack, nine hundred and ninety-nine of which will apply equally to the other one as well. His counterparts in other armies will look enviously at his because theirs are all heaps of cack too (the "grass is greener" syndrome). And he'll still claim, when its replacement is announced, that what has been a heap of cack all this time is actually brilliant and the replacement is bound to be a heap of cack (a variant of Stockholm syndrome). As for cheapest, once you get into purchase cost, offsets, remedial works, full-life running costs, upgrades, staff costs for the people using it and repairing it, compensation for fences and chickens found under its tracks on returning to barracks, etc etc etc, well, what was your given value of "cheap" again? Edited March 23, 2010 by pigsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Séan Pádraig Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 so by that definition if there is no real difference between the two why not go with the home product, even if it is only percieved to be home grown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 so by that definition if there is no real difference between the two why not go with the home product, even if it is only percieved to be home grown. Neither is a "home" product. One is Swedish and the other Austrian/Spanish. A home company has bought in a foreign design to offer it to the MoD - that's as domestic as it gets. And if you dig deep enough into the ownership of any of the companies involved, you'll probably find they all live officially in Switzerland or Dubai or Narnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Séan Pádraig Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 OK, point taken but all things being equal as you have amply demonstrated, only one of the versions has British in the name (BAe). So again I restate my point that even if only for the sake of patriotism and the artificial notion of doing right by the British workforce, why not go with the BAe version. You can bet had the roles been reversed the US would have gone with the US version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now