FRES

[Invité grinch]

Changement de doctrine :

Les futurs blindés pour le FRES seront aérotransportables par A400M et C-17 et non plus par les C-130 J.

?? tu tiens d'ou cette information, il me semblait qu'il avait abandonné l'aérotransportabilité

Mais quelle version de Piranha ? est sur la short list ,Est-ce celle du Mowag IV ou la III ?

Il me semble qu'il s'agit de la version IV

Sacré montage avec le constructeur US General Dynamics propriètaire du suisse Mowag ,relié par la division GD UK. ça sent l'embrouille ! à la sauce menthe car Artec et Nexter risquent d'être laisés.

Comme on dit, iA ou Wait and See...

Le fait d'être sur la short-list permet au MoD de verifier les performances annoncés par les constructeurs mais le programme FRES est sans cesse remanié, modifié en fonction des Retex d'irak et d'afghanistan. Si j'ai bien compris, à l'heure actuelle 3 famille (design) de véhicule sont initié; Utility Vehicle (en court de test), la fonction de contact (lourde) et la reconnaissance.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Après recherche :

(Source: House of Commons Defence Committee; issued July 5, 2007)

 

MPs found that almost half of the RAF’s air transport fleet was unavailable because of maintenance and other problems. (Photo by SAC Adam Houlston/MoD)The Ministry of Defence (MoD) needs the capability to transport personnel, equipment and stores from the UK to operational theatres across the globe. This capability known as Strategic Lift, can by delivered by sea, land or air. Its annual cost to the MoD is almost £800 million a year. 

The Strategic Defence Review of 1998 highlighted an urgent need to improve the UK's Strategic Lift capability to support the expeditionary policy. In the short term, the improvements were to be delivered through the acquisition of Roll-on Roll-off (Ro-Ro) container ships and the leasing of C-17 large transport aircraft. In the longer term, ageing transport aircraft were to be replaced by the new A400M transport aircraft. 

The MoD has made good progress in improving its strategic sea-lift. The Ro-Ro ships have proved to be very effective and the acquisition of Landing Platform Dock (Auxiliary) vessels has also been useful. 

Progress in improving strategic air-lift has been less good. The leasing of four C-17 large transport aircraft has greatly increased strategic air-lift capability. The MoD is purchasing the four aircraft when the lease ends in 2008 and a fifth C-17 aircraft. Given the tempo of current operations, there are likely to be substantial benefits in acquiring additional C-17 aircraft, but a quick decision may be needed as the C-17 production line might be closing in the near future. 

The MoD plans to acquire 25 A400M military transport aircraft which were originally planned to enter service at the end of 2009. The programme has experienced a 15 month delay which has required the MoD to extend the lives of some of its ageing air transport fleet. Several transport aircraft have been lost during current operations. The MoD should consider acquiring additional A400M aircraft, given possible future losses, to maintain the pool of 25 A400M aircraft. 

A key role for the A400M will be to transport the Army's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) medium-weight armoured vehicles quickly to trouble spots around the globe. There is concern that FRES is increasing in weight during its development. The increased weight of FRES could lead to it becoming too heavy to be transported by the A400M, or could substantially reduce the distance that the vehicles could be transported. The weight of FRES needs to be closely monitored to ensure that the UK does not acquire a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles which cannot be deployed rapidly overseas. 

In addition to providing air-to-air refuelling, the MoD's elderly tanker fleet also provides a Strategic Lift capability by transporting passengers and freight. The MoD announced in early June 2007 that it had decided to proceed with a Private Finance Initiative deal to acquire new tanker aircraft, although the contractor still has to raise the required funding. 

The MoD needs to work closely with the contractor to ensure that the deal can be finalised as quickly as possible, as the current tanker aircraft are coming towards the end of their lives and the new aircraft will provide greatly improved air transport for UK Service personnel. 

Conclusions and recommendations 

1. Strategic sea-lift enables large volumes of defence equipment and stores to be transported to operational theatres in the most cost-effective way, but early political and military decision-making is needed if sea-lift is to be possible. We recommend that the MoD identify how the speed of its decision-making could be improved further in order to maximise the use of sea-lift. (Paragraph 15) 

2. Strategic air-lift is an expensive option for transporting equipment and stores when compared with strategic sea-lift, but is the fastest option for transporting equipment and stores needed urgently in theatre. When using strategic air-lift, the MoD must ensure that the lift capacity of aircraft is fully utilised, giving priority to the equipment and stores urgently needed in theatre. However, where spare capacity is available, it makes sense to transport other items which are not needed as urgently, rather than "fly fresh air". (Paragraph 17) 

3. We note that the transportation of equipment through third countries to support current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has generally not caused any problems. (Paragraph 19) 

4. We are pleased to learn that the Ro-Ro container ships have performed very effectively in both supporting current operations and undertaking other tasks, and note that the MoD considers that the six ships are sufficient to meet its current needs. (Paragraph 22) 

5. We note that in addition to the six Ro-Ro container ships, the MoD's four Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) vessels can also be used in a strategic sea-lift role, although they have only been used once to date in such a role. (Paragraph 25) 

6. The MoD has good arrangements to access commercial shipping and has, to date, secured the commercial shipping it required to supplement its own sea-lift capability. However, the commercial shipping market is reducing. We recommend that the MoD undertake a detailed analysis of the commercial shipping market with the aim of assessing whether it will be able to secure access to commercial shipping in the quantities and timeframes necessary to meet its future needs. (Paragraph 32) 

(EDITOR’S NOTE: On this subject, the report notes the following: 

Of 75 Hercules, TriStar and VC-10 aircraft, only 41, some 55%, were available in November 2006 for immediate deployment to undertake the required task. We asked at what point there would be an insufficient number of aircraft available to undertake the tasks required. 

AVM Leeson said that the number of aircraft available to be tasked varied with each of the aircraft fleets “because of the age of the aeroplanes and the various maintenance and fleet overheads that go with those”. 

The point at which the MoD would worry about availability would differ between the different aircraft fleets….He told us that he would become very concerned if the aircraft availability level fell below 50% “because to operate at that level is a reasonable yardstick”. (Paragraph 35) 

7. We are very concerned that a high proportion of the current transport and tanker aircraft are not available for immediate deployment to undertake the required tasks. While modifications are often the reason for aircraft not being available, maintenance is also a key factor, and reflects the fact that the MoD has an ageing transport and tanker aircraft fleet which is being flown at an unexpectedly high level in very punishing conditions. While new transport and tanker aircraft are in the pipeline, it will be some years before they enter service. We have real doubts as to whether the current transport and tanker fleet can provide the level of availability required between now and when these new aircraft come into service. (Paragraph 38) 

8. The MoD makes extensive use of commercial air-lift for transporting freight and personnel to supplement its own air-lift assets, and is reviewing whether the current balance between the air-lift capacity provided by its own air-lift assets and the air-lift capacity it requires from the marketplace is right. The MoD should complete its review as quickly as possible and ensure that the recommendations are implemented fully. (Paragraph 46) 

9. We welcome the action that has been taken to improve the reliability of the airbridge and to improve the experience of service personnel being transported to and from the UK and operational theatres. The MoD should not underestimate the impact on the morale of Service personnel of delays returning to the UK, particularly if the delays cut into a short period of leave. The MoD must monitor closely issues relating to the airbridge and ensure that the improvements in hand are fully implemented. (Paragraph 53) 

10. The leasing of four C-17 large transport aircraft, which are to be purchased when the lease ends, has greatly increased the MoD's strategic air-lift capability and performed extremely well. We welcome the fact that these four aircraft will be purchased once the lease ends and that the MoD is to purchase a fifth C-17 aircraft. We recommend that the MoD should commission a detailed analysis of the medium and longer term consequences of the high level of use of the C-17 and C-130 Hercules fleets, and should publish the results of that analysis as soon as possible. (Paragraph 62) 

11. MoD officials are producing advice to ministers setting out options for addressing possible risks relating to the MoD's future air-lift requirements. Given the performance of its C-17 large transport aircraft, the MoD must give consideration to the acquisition of additional C-17 aircraft. Such a decision needs to be taken quickly given that the C-17 production line may be closing in the near future. (Paragraph 67) 

12. We note that the In-Service Date slippage on the A400M programme remains at 15 months, as reported in the Major Projects Report 2006, and that Airbus has devoted more resources to the programme to keep it on track. (Paragraph 74) 

13. The delay to the A400M programme has required the lives of ageing C-130K aircraft to be extended. If there are any further delays on the A400M programme, the scope for further extending the lives of C-130K aircraft may be limited, and expensive, leaving a potential capability gap. We recommend that the MoD undertakes a full analysis of the options for bridging a potential capability gap if the A400 programme experiences any further delays. (Paragraph 77) 

14. The MoD has assured us that A400M aircraft will be fitted with a Defensive Aid System and a Fuel Tank Inertion system for protection. We assume these systems will be fitted to all A400M aircraft and call on the MoD to confirm, in its response to our report, that this will be the case. It would be a false economy not to fit these systems to all A400M aircraft during manufacture, only then to retro-fit the systems later at great expense. (Paragraph 79) 

15. The MoD is acquiring 25 A400M aircraft to replace its C-130K Hercules aircraft fleet. Several C-130 Hercules aircraft have been lost during current operations and the MoD is undertaking work to identify likely future attrition rates. We recommend that the MoD consider acquiring additional A400M aircraft to ensure that the pool of 25 available aircraft is maintained. (Paragraph 81) 

16. It is intended that the MoD's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES), a family of medium-weight armoured vehicles, are to be transportable to operational theatres by A400M aircraft. However, the increased weight of FRES could lead to it becoming too heavy to be transported by A400M or could substantially reduce the distance that the vehicles could be transported. The weight of FRES must be carefully monitored and managed, both during development and when in-service, to avoid a situation where the UK Armed Forces will have a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles which cannot be deployed rapidly overseas. (Paragraph 90) 

17. The MoD is undertaking work to identify a support and maintenance arrangement for the A400M aircraft when it enters service. The MoD needs to ensure that the arrangement identified provides the UK with operational sovereignty. (Paragraph 92) 

18. The A400M programme is a European collaborative programme, but has been structured in a way to avoid some of the problems experienced on past collaborative programmes, such as Eurofighter. We recommend that the MoD evaluate those aspects of the A400M programme which have gone well, and those aspects which have gone less well, such as the very long development phase, and ensure that the lessons are applied to future collaborative programmes. (Paragraph 96) 

19. The MoD's current tanker aircraft fleet consists of elderly TriStar and VC-10 aircraft which are becoming increasingly expensive to keep in service. We note that MoD considers that these aircraft can be maintained in service until the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) is available, although it acknowledges that there would come a point where the cost of maintaining the aircraft would become prohibitive. (Paragraph 105) 

20. We note that the MoD considers that a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deal for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme offers better value for money than acquiring the aircraft under a conventional procurement approach. (Paragraph 111) 

21. The FSTA programme was nominated as a potential PFI project in 1997, but some ten years later a deal has yet to be finalised. We expect the MoD to identify the reasons why this project has taken so long, and the lessons for future projects where the MoD is considering a PFI approach. (Paragraph 112) 

22. We welcome the news that MoD has decided to proceed towards financial and contractual close of the FSTA PFI deal. However, challenges still remain on the project as the funding has still to be raised. It is important that the MoD works closely with the contractor, AirTanker Ltd, so that the PFI deal can be finalised quickly. We consider it vital that the FSTA aircraft enter service as soon as possible, given the need for improved air transport for Service personnel. (Paragraph 115) 

23. We note that other countries also have a requirement for new tanker aircraft. The MoD should consider whether there is scope for another country to become a partner on the FSTA given the financial and inter-operability benefits that this might offer. (Paragraph 116)

La balle est donc dans le camps de Lord Drayson puisque si tu me dis que c'est le Piranha IV que proposera GD UK pour le FRES ,il est tout autant aérotransportable en C130 J (en allégeant) que en A400 M. Le Piranha III rentre lui dans un Hercule.

Ce programme FRES est versatile !

[Invité grinch]

en relisant un T&A, GD UK proposerai le piranha V

[Philippe Top-Force]

en relisant un T&A, GD UK proposerai le piranha V

en relisant un T&A, GD UK proposerai le piranha V*

*Tu as du faire une faute de frappe car la version du 8x8 Piranha IV doit commencer à peine sa carrière internationale.

http://www.mowag.ch/PDF/PIR_IV8x8_en.pdf

A moins qu'au prochain DSEI à Londres ,ils nous sortent une autre version V spéciale pour le FRES ?

[lol94]

voici quelques véhicules déployés par les anglais sur leurs différents

théatres d'opérations , l'infanterie s'alourdit , fini le temps des lands-

rovers !

-- Mastiff :

-- vector :

-- Bulldog mk3 :

[Manu]

Trouvé sur militaryphotos.net

Candidates for next generation of British armoured vehicles unveiled.

The candidate vehicles are the Boxer, produced by the Dutch-German ARTEC consortium; Piranha, a Mowag design presented by General Dynamics UK and the VBCI design, produced by French company Nexter.

The contenders in the latest stage of the Army's programme for a new force of battlefield armoured vehicles - the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) - were unveiled by Minister of State for Defence Equipment and Support Lord Drayson today, Tuesday 31 July 2007.

The three vehicles shortlisted for the MOD's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) contract. From the left: the Piranha, the VBCI, and the Boxer

[Picture: Andrew Linnett]

The Piranha; one of the three finalists shortlisted for the MOD's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) contract

[Picture: Andrew Linnett]

C'est bien le Piranha IV qui est en compétition avec le VBCI et le Boxer.

[Philippe Top-Force]

C'est en effet la version IV du dernier 8x8 Mowag.

Bon anniversaire manu pour cette semaine. =)

[Manu]

Bon anniversaire manu pour cette semaine. =)

Merci  ;)

[Tactac]

Très belle photo (la première).

Je me demande ce qu'est la petite boule à l'arrière du Piranha, un élément optique rotatif ?

GD semble très impliqué sur le FRES ( http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/solutions/fres.html ), ils vont être vraiment dur à battre ...

[Akhilleus]

en même temps, si on veut etre objectif, le Piranha IV (Stryker) donne pas vraiment satisfaction en Irak donc les bons commerciaux de chez Nexter et d'Artec pourraient jouer dessus non ??

[Tiger]

le Stryker = piranha III et non piranaha IV qui ets nettement polus gros

c'est presque 2 catégories en fait : les VTT (moins de 20 tonnes, amrmeent léger) et les vrais VCI (+ de 25 tonnes, armement canon supérieur à 25mm ou autre).

on a en fait 2 catégories. L'une qui résiste aux balles 14,5mm, l'autre aux obus 30mm voir plus. Ni l'une ni l'autre des catégorie ne résistent à des RPG, sauf installation d'une protection active. La slat armor n'arrétant que 50% des misisles, et en aucun cas ceux tirés depuis des étages élevés.

Le Stryker ne donne pas satisfaction, c'ets sure, surtout qu'à la base, il était prévu piour être un blindé urbain. Les américains y ont appris que la chenille a encore de beaux jours devant elle : les insurgés tirent les roues, un chenillé pivote à 360° sur lui même : pas un blindé à roue, un chenillé passe des obstacles plus hauts qu'un vehicule à roue, de même qu'une suite d'obstacles (gravats, etc). Donc, malgré les avantages de la roue, l'armée américaine restera sur la chenille souple, et c'est ce qui a dicté ce moyen de propulsion pour les FCS. faut quand même pas oublier qu'à la base, le Stryker était sencé rmepalcer une partie des hummer. De ce coté là, l'avancée de la protection est évidente. Notamment face aux IED, ou aux charges creuses improvisées.

Pour la bouboule, visiblement, c'est optique. Surement une caméra de recul/vision à 360 °.

Dans le trials, patria AMV n'est pas là? c'ets qauand même un ami de l'angleterre, car patria produira en accord avec Bae System ses AMV pour l'afrique du sud, et surtout, c'est un excellant blindé.

[LBP]

Le VBCI un blindé Français pour les Britanniques  :O

chance pour le VBCI 0.05%  :lol:

[Philippe Top-Force]

The Piranha Evolution, which will serve as the basis for the development of the Piranha V, will show its capabilities in the competition to select the UV Design for the British Army’s next generation of medium weight Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Piranha V will utilise cutting-edge materials and technologies to deliver an optimum balance of survivability, mobility and capacity, tailored to meet the needs of British soldiers in the field.

[Tactac]

Comment tout dire et rien dire à la fois, c'est bien de l'anglais dans le texte ...

Sinon pour ceux qui voulait se persuader de la version de piranha employée, il y avait le pdf accessible sur le site de GD (Cf. lien plus haut).

Cette présentation est aussi intéressante car elle traduit la volonté de GD de gagner le marché (même si certains me diront que c'est juste de la comm.).

[Invité Rob]

Une petite nouvelle.

FRES made in the UK

It is planned that the majority of the vehicles under the Future Rapid Effects System – FRES – will be built in the UK but

existing production lines located overseas may be used to manufacture initial batches of FRES vehicles in order to promote early

delivery, Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth told MPs. “We are clear that the intellectual property rights,

design authority, and systems architecture of the final FRES vehicle must reside in the UK,” he added.

Link.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9801D69E-E79C-4450-BAEE-4D93C0A2F2D3/0/PreviewIssue162August2007.pdf

[mark1100]

Candidates for next generation armoured vehicles unveiled

PRNewswire-GNN London 31 July

London, 31 July /PRNewswire-GNN/ --

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE News Release (193/2007) issued by The Government News

Network on 31 July 2007

The contenders in the latest stage of the Army's programme for a new force

of battlefield armoured vehicles - the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) -

were unveiled by Minister of State for Defence Equipment and Support Lord

Drayson today.

Boxer, Piranha and VBCI were put through their paces at the Bovington training

area as part of trials for a FRES Utility Vehicle Variant.  The winning

design will be developed further to meet the Army's future needs.

Defence Minister Lord Drayson said:

"These trials are a significant step forward in a vital programme which is at

the centre of the future of the British Army. I made clear in February that

MOD intended to take forward the FRES programme at pace. Today's event is

tangible evidence of that commitment being put into practice, and I look

forward to announcing the winners of both the trials and the System of

Systems Integrator competition in November."

The Utility Vehicle design competition is a key element of the FRES acquisition

strategy announced last November.

Notes to editors

1. The FRES programme will equip the UK Armed Forces with over 3,000 new

medium weight armoured vehicles. This includes reconnaissance, direct fire,

and manoeuvre support vehicles. They will provide high levels of protection and

will be air-transportable, allowing troops to deploy rapidly around the globe.

2. The Army's FRES requirement continues to be informed by operational

experience, where the threats to our forces are constantly evolving.

This operational experience means that FRES specifications will be matched

as closely as possible to the needs of our troops both today and in the future.

3. The candidate vehicles are the Boxer, produced by the Dutch-German ARTEC

consortium; Piranha, a Mowag design presented by General Dynamics UK and

the VBCI design, produced by French company Nexter.

4. The trials have involved the candidate vehicles being evaluated by

technical experts and soldiers.

5. For further information please contact Clare Keen at MOD Press Office

020 7218 2165 or Lisa Murphy on 07810 237923.

[Tiger]

ça va seulement être le desing qui va être retenu d'après ce que j'ai compris à l'article ?

en gros : les 3/4 des pièces seront made in england et ils rachèteront juste le chassis pour l'adapter à leur propre besoin. c'est plutot logique pour s'adapter au mieux au besoin anglais qui n'est plus le même que celui des hollandais, des allemands et bien sur, le VBCI "is to much french..."

[Invité Rob]

ça va seulement être le desing qui va être retenu d'après ce que j'ai compris à l'article ?

en gros : les 3/4 des pièces seront made in england et ils rachèteront juste le chassis pour l'adapter à leur propre besoin. c'est plutot logique pour s'adapter au mieux au besoin anglais qui n'est plus le même que celui des hollandais, des allemands et bien sur, le VBCI "is to much french..."

On va acheter le dessin du chassis. Le production du presque tout (peut-etre tout) vehicules vont etre en Royaume-Uni. On va avoir le "intellectual property" c'est a dire a mon avis on va capable de changer le dessin et vendre aux autres pays. Les deux entreprises capable de produire environ 2400 vehicules en le Royaume-Uni sont BAE Systems et ABRO.

[Tactac]

On va acheter le dessin du chassis. Le production du presque tout (peut-etre tout) vehicules vont etre en Royaume-Uni. On va avoir le "intellectual property" c'est a dire a mon avis on va capable de changer le dessin et vendre aux autres pays. Les deux entreprises capable de produire environ 2400 vehicules en le Royaume-Uni sont BAE Systems et ABRO.

Si le VBCI est "too much french", ce plan est "so british ... "

[Invité Rob]

Si le VBCI est "too much french", ce plan est "so british ... "

Acheter un vehicule militaire etranger est presque impossible en la France.  Ne dit pas "the British" quand la France est moins libre en acheter des armes. Il est claire que nous voulons le capabilite de changer le dessin sans une puissance etrangere, et il est claire que nous voulons une production en le Royaume-Uni. Ces ne sont pas des chooses ridicule, mais normale. On peut aussi donner BAE Systems l'argent et ils developent un nouveau vehicule, mais parce que nous voulons les vehicules tres vites, une developement britannique n'est pas choisit, et on veux un "off the shelf design purchase". Quand je pourrait la decision, je donnerait l'argent BAE Systems pour une developement totallement britannique et pour les prochaines ans j'ai achete plus de FV432 modernisations.

[Tactac]

On est plus dans une relation état/état.

Nexter n'est pas la france ou l'armée française, c'est d'ailleurs pour cela qu'ils ont changés de nom, car les choses changent ...

Evidemment, chacun a tendance à privilégier son marché intérieur mais je pense que pour faire 2500 véhicules, une entreprise comme Nexter (qui je le rappelle est une entreprise et pas l'armée française...) peut très bien monter un business unit en grande-bretagne.

L'armée française va en premier lieu acheter Dassault, DCN ou Nexter mais les entreprises de défense tendent à devenir de plus en plus européennes.

[Invité Rob]

Nexter n'est pas la france ou l'armée française, c'est d'ailleurs pour cela qu'ils ont changés de nom, car les choses changent ...

Evidemment, chacun a tendance à privilégier son marché intérieur mais je pense que pour faire 2500 véhicules, une entreprise comme Nexter (qui je le rappelle est une entreprise et pas l'armée française...) peut très bien monter un business unit en grande-bretagne.

L'armée française va en premier lieu acheter Dassault, DCN ou Nexter mais les entreprises de défense tendent à devenir de plus en plus européennes.

Je ne voit pas ca, la France est moins libre que le Royaume-Uni en acheter des armes etranger et je pense on ne doit pas aider la France en ce regarde, c'est a dire je ne veut pas acheter francais quand vous n'achetez pas britannique, je ne veut pas un marche libre britannique pour des produits francais quand le marche francais n'est pas libre pour des produits britanniques. Voire les USA, ils ont achete des centaines M777s par exemple. FRES est un grand programme et il est neccessaire que BAE Systems ou ABRO produit les vehicules. J'expecte que BAE Systems gagne le role du "SOSI" en FRES.

Et meme quand le marche francais est libre, pourquoi paye Nexter pour construire des usines en le Royaume-Uni quand nous avons des usines deja en le Royaume-Uni avec BAE Systems et ABRO? Ca n'est pas logique. Non, quand le MoD veut les vehicules vites, ils pouvent acheter un dessin etranger mais la production doit etre en le Royaume-Uni avec BAE Systems ou ABRO.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Nexter est prêt à faire un transfert de technologies vers BAE Systems land division sur le projet FRES ,Grinch a même laché une information d'une possible acquisition de notre industriel de défense terrestre par le géant UK. Paris veut consolider un géant de la défense terrestre.

Dans le cadre de son processus de croissance avec ses acquisitions des entreprises US (UDI) ,BAE est impliquée avec GDLS sur le FCS US voir par ex : le NLOS du FCS

General Dynamics a une filiale en Grande-Bretagne ,GD UK qui présentera le piranha V.

Vous devinez le reste.

Maintenant ,comme le pense Rob ni Artec/KMW ni Nexter accepteraient après un transfert de technologies que l'entreprise receveuse de transfert puisse par la suite vendre et concurrencer le même produit et le proposer sur le marché exportation. La réciproque est valable pour BAE Systems.

[Invité Rob]

Maintenant ,comme le pense Rob ni Artec/KMW ni Nexter accepteraient après un transfert de technologies que l'entreprise receveuse de transfert puisse par la suite vendre et concurrencer le même produit et le proposer sur le marché exportation. La réciproque est valable pour BAE Systems.

Il etait claire depuis des ans que le "intellectual property" va etre avec le Royaume-Uni ou une entreprise qui le Royaume-Uni choisit, une entreprise qui n'accepte pas ca ne va pas gagner le contrat pour le dessin.

[Philippe Top-Force]

On va acheter le dessin du chassis. Le production du presque tout (peut-etre tout) vehicules vont etre en Royaume-Uni. On va avoir le "intellectual property" c'est a dire a mon avis on va capable de changer le dessin et vendre aux autres pays. Les deux entreprises capable de produire environ 2400 vehicules en le Royaume-Uni sont BAE Systems et ABRO.

dear Rob,

Accorder une license de production ,faire un transfert technologique ,disposer d'une propriété intellectuelle induisent des accords binationaux ,mutuels et respectueux.

Lorsque Londres et Paris s'étaient mises d'accord sur les 3 licenses de production et de construction des Lynx/Gazelle/Puma. Après l'entente et les accords ,Paris n'a jamais vendu à l'export des Lynx à ses clients et Londres n'a jamais vendus des Gazelles à ses propres clients.

Si par exemple ,Londres et Paris optent pour leurs forces médianes du même blindé à roues ,à savoir le VBCI proposé par Nexter ,l'adjoindre du même canon codéveloppé CTA 40 mm par Paris et Londres ,il est clair que Paris accordera la license de production ,ainsi que la division Land Systems de BAE Systems pourra les construire sur ses chaines de production ,mais ce n'est pas pour ensuite les proposer aux clients export et piller les technologies NEXTER.

Maintenant ,nous savons tous que BAE Systems est impliqué dans le plus gros projet US par l'intermédiaire de sa filiale BAE Systems North America : voir le très gros projet d'armement terrestre américain : FCS et que certainement des "offset" et accords en tous genres seront proposés entre General Dynamics Land Systems et sa filiale UK en Grande-Bretagne. Du donnant-donnant.

Ce qui sous-entends que Artec/KMW et Nexter ne jouent que les "faire-valoir" dans ce marché de dupes qu'est le FRES.

A moins qu'à Londres ,Lord Paul Drayson & Wes Brown MoD nous sortent une belle surprise et optent pour une coopération européenne. On peut toujours rêver ! C'est si bon.