[Blindé] Le FRES-SV Recce

[Serge]

La tourelle allemande Lance devrait être choisie pour la version Recce du FRES-SV:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4562506

[Serge]

Les premières images du FRES-SV Recce:

Il faut bien avouer qu'il en impose.

[Philippe Top-Force]

A-t-on une idée des coûts unitaires de bête ? Et ne va-t-il pas passer (le programme) à la trappe avec David Cameron aux commandes du royaume?

[Clairon]

Lisez l'excellent rapport suivant :

Focus 23 : Les armées britanniques. Un modèle en crise - CBA Pierre Chareyron

http://www.ifri.org/?page=detail-contribution&id=6132&id_provenance=88&provenance_context_id=15

Et mon petit doigt me dit que le FRES passera sans doute à la trappe ....

Clairon

[Serge]

A-t-on une idée des coûts unitaires de bête ? Et ne va-t-il pas passer (le programme) à la trappe avec David Cameron aux commandes du royaume?

Les 7 prototypes vont couter 500 millions de £.

[murena]

500 ou 50? Rassure-moi.

[g4lly]

500 ou 50? Rassure-moi.

500 ...

The initial 500 million pound development and demonstration phase, which involves building and testing seven prototypes, is slated to run until 2013.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4694040

[Oberoth]

En même temps c'est normal, c'est les premiers exemplaires, faut modifier pas mal de chose et faire les tests.

[murena]

Bon, d'accord  :oops: ('intérêt à être des brutasses indestructibles ces conserves  :-\ )

[Serge]

Voici un texte qui récapitule l'ensemble des missions menées par la reco blindée britanique:

The Think Defence blog recently asked "What is a scout used for anyway?", in context of the recent UK decision to buy FRES Scout Vehicle (the UK is being ripped off with a modified ASCOD IFV project).

That's an excellent question.

Armoured recce doctrine varies a lot between countries, even within NATO.

There are roughly three categories of missions

for armoured recce units (above the level of battalion scouts):

(I) The undisputed armoured recce core missions

(II) Combat missions as auxiliary combat troops or at low force density

(III) "As you're already there..."

(Sequence is irrelevant.)

Category I

(The undisputed armoured recce core missions):

(a) Inform manoeuvre commanders about the situation out of the recce radius of his combat troops (& his own recce element).

This is the biggest chunk and gets the most attention. It's well-documented, therefore I don't delve into its details.

(b) Cooperate with air power and long range artillery (detection, tracking, identification, target designation, battle damage assessment).

© Probing in order to detect gaps or weak spots.

Category II

(Combat missions as auxiliary combat troops or at low force density):

(a) Defeat hostile recce elements when encountered (possibly hunt them down).

(b) Coups de main against establishing defensive positions, airfields, bridges, depots, combat (service) support troops, headquarters, SAM sites and radars.

© Flank security

(d) Advance guard / vanguard

(e) Deception (attacks) - this is especially an option if armoured recce vehicles look similar to the combat troops' vehicles.

(f) Rear guard action

(g) Convoy escort

(h) (Last ditch) reserve in crisis (in a defensive battle) together with engineers.

(i) Assault gun-like support of otherwise imbalanced (combined arms minus armour) efforts.

(j) Skirmishing combat force for fighting in & control of terrain in low force density (Americans call this an "economy of force" mission).

(k) Engage (with surprise effect) not battle-ready hostile combat troops.

Category III

("As you're already there..."):

(a) Report air situation far forward (passive ground/air sensors).

(b) Pick up air crews who crashed or ejected.

© Infiltrate/exfiltrate LRS teams and agents.

(d) Radio relay function

(e) Capture OPFOR equipment for technical analysis (especially rear unit's equipment).

(f) Disable infrastructure (rail lines, land lines, dams, civilian radio towers, bridges, tunnels, power lines, fuel stations).

(g) Emplace/retrieve unattended sensors.

(h) Destruction of crashed or emergency-landed aircraft (especially helicopters)

(i) Ambush hostile (hopefully unsuspecting) helicopters.

(j) Intercept hostile supply convoys.

(I certainly forgot several small missions.)

- - - - -

There's probably not a single army in the world that assigns all these missions officially to its armoured reconnaissance troops.

Such a complete set of missions and corresponding capabilities is nevertheless desirable, at least for a part of the armoured recce forces.

An armoured recce organisation that focuses on the employment of long-range sensors only would be enticed to restrict itself (if higher level commanders don't do it) to a kind of risk-averse forward (artillery) observer organisation. Fire support coordination teams and reconnaissance are different missions, though - the organisation, training and equipment should reflect this!

It's pointless to strive for risk-free scouting. Small scout teams are to be sent forward into traps in order to avoid that the whole formation walks into that trap.

- - - - -

An army review that looks into armoured recce should do something similar to this:

a) Get a reasonable idea about future conflict.

b) Establish mission requirements (pick missions from the list).

c) Address the organisation issue (especially the status; is armoured recce an army, corps, division and/or brigade asset?).

d) Think about adequate tactical principles.

e) Address the equipment issue (with budget in mind).

f) Write down the recommendations.

Sven Ortmann.

Voici l'adresse du blog de Sven Ortmann:

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

[Oberoth]

Au final ils vont avoir combien de véhicules de se type ? Ils seront complétés par le Piranha V pour le véhicule à roue ? Si oui en combien d'exemplaires également ?

[Philippe Top-Force]

Serge a loupé la dernière vidéo du programme  :lol:

[P4]

Les limitations du Fres-SV, http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/cvrt-what-are-we-losing/

[Serge]

Décidément, Think-Defence a toujours des articles de qualité.

[Serge]

Les limitations du Fres-SV, http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/cvrt-what-are-we-losing/

L'usage d'un châssis ASCOD-2 pour faire de la reco est symptomatique du manque de cohérence dans la conduite des programmes de blindés britanniques. Quand on a un train de roulement capable de monter jusqu'à 45t, autant inclure la sortie des FV-510 Warrior.

Même si la masse du FRES-SV Recce sera un inconveniant, Think-Defence va loin dans ses griefs: le véhicule ne fera pas 45t mais plus dans les 24t (ce qui est déjà énorme en soi).

Voici un article de Think-Defense qui regroupe des témoignages sur le CVR(T)-Scimitar:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/what-does-a-cvrt-replacement-look-like-part-1/

[Philippe Top-Force]

J'ai lu que General Dynamics United Kingdom allait peut-être revenir sur des promesses d'assemblage du FRES SV et donc de créations d'emploi.

[Serge]

Toujours dans cette logique:"Un tien vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras", Think-Defence a diffusé son deuxième volet autour de la fin du CVR(T)

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/what-does-a-cvrt-replacement-look-like-–-part-2/

il me semble qu'il y a deux faiblesses dans cet article:

- Think-Defence n'indique pas l'effet que recherche l'armée britannique (Peut-être n'y a-t-il pas d'effet d'ailleur?). Cette nostalgie a donc des limites car, à un moment, on disserte dans le vide. Les Brits' veulent-ils des éclaireurs portés? Veulent-ils des modules ISTAR déployables? Y aura-t-il un drone terrestre ou volant en soute?

- Think-Defence évoque l'intérêt d'un "couple" fondé sur le 40CTA et un 90mm. Cette dernière proposition est assez contestable car elle rendrait plus complexe la maintenance et la logistique pour un gain assez limité. L'étendue des capacités du 40CTA est une percée comme on en a pas vu depuis des décenies.

[Clairon]

L'étendue des capacités du 40CTA est une percée comme on en a pas vu depuis des décenies.

on quitte le sujet, mais étonnant que CTA International ne dévelloppe pas d'autres versions, une 12,7 CTA et un 75 mm ou 90 mm par exemple

Clairon

[Philippe Top-Force]

on quitte le sujet, mais étonnant que CTA International ne dévelloppe pas d'autres versions, une 12,7 CTA et un 75 mm ou 90 mm par exemple

Clairon

Vas sur le site de General Dynamics United Kingdom et lis bien les lignes sur le CTA  ;)

[Clairon]

Vas sur le site de General Dynamics United Kingdom et lis bien les lignes sur le CTA  ;)

rien trouvé sur http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/search?q=CTA

Clairon

[g4lly]

on quitte le sujet, mais étonnant que CTA International ne dévelloppe pas d'autres versions, une 12,7 CTA et un 75 mm ou 90 mm par exemple

Y a eu quelques études de faisabilité sur 3 autres calibres 25, 105 et 120, mais en l'absence de financement aucun developpement n'a été initié.

[Philippe Top-Force]

rien trouvé sur http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/search?q=CTA

Clairon

C'était logé dans more news http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/news/general_dynamics_uk_debuts_scout_sv_turret_at_dvd_2010

Ils ne parlent plus de CTA International (coopération franco-britannique sur le CTA 40 mm)

June 23rd 2010 - General Dynamics UK debuts Scout SV turret at DVD 2010

General Dynamics UK will unveil its Scout SV turret for ASCOD SV to visitors at DVD (Defence Vehicle Dynamics) 2010 tomorrow, demonstrating the advanced development of the Scout SV programme in its readiness to deliver the vehicle to the British Army on time and on budget. The turret will be unveiled in mock-up form on the General Dynamics UK stand in the presence of members of the turret design team from Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill and Rheinmetall.

The ASCOD SV turret has been designed to maximise space and protection for the crew inside. The large turret-ring diameter of 1.7m is wider than that on older vehicles such as Warrior, and the design increases space further by placing the main ammunition feed under armour outside the turret crew compartment. This gives soldiers considerable room for modern display screens, comfort for long periods inside the turret and ease of movement, even wearing full body armour and future wearable systems. With the need for military electronics ever-expanding on operations, the turret allows significant room for new systems to be fitted without compromising the design of the vehicle.

The turret is designed around the CT40 Cased Telescoped Cannon System, which was successfully integrated and fired by turret provider Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill at the start of this year. The CT40 cannon is common to the Scout SV and Warrior CSP programmes and the MoD will benefit significantly from the commonality of work done by Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill on both programmes.

The Scout turret delivery team includes: DSG for assembly integration and test; Rheinmetall Land Systems for the turret structure, cannon mounting structure and CT40 integration; Ultra Electronics for power management; Curtiss Wright for turret drives and stabilisation control; Meggitt for the ammunition handling system; Moog for the slip ring; and Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill for fire control and training and as the turret integration authority. Over 75% of this work will be done in the UK.

The ASCOD SV’s hull is also designed to accommodate a 2.1m turret ring, easily carrying, for example, a 120mm gun so offering the option of an early, low-risk path to a Direct Fire variant. The vehicle’s 42-tonne capability allows it to carry such a gun at this higher weight without compromising full performance or its ability to carry the full Scout SV armour.

The turret design combines with the high power-distribution capability of the General Dynamics UK Core Infrastructure Distribution System (CIDS) open Electronic Architecture (EA), which allows new-generation systems to be plugged in as required and power generation to be expanded.

[Clairon]

Désolé Philippe, mais mis à part les listes de sous-traitants pour la tourelle et le fait que le 40 mm CTWS soit commun au Warrior Improved & FRES SV, pas un pet sur de possibles autres versions du 40 CTA .....

Clairon

[Philippe Top-Force]

Désolé Philippe, mais mis à part les listes de sous-traitants pour la tourelle et le fait que le 40 mm CTWS soit commun au Warrior Improved & FRES SV, pas un pet sur de possibles autres versions du 40 CTA .....

Clairon

En fait, on était désynchronisé dans notre échange d'où sort une certaine incompréhension et/ou distorsion d'information. :lol:

Je voulais juste te faire remarquer que au delà du fait que le produit CTA 40 mm est issu d'une joint venture entre BAE Land Systems et Nexter à savoir CTA International, il y a à noter que c'est sur une proposition de General Dynamics United Kingdom sur le FRES SV et non une proposition de General Dynamics European Land Systems ( Steyr Puch/Santa Barbosa/Mowag/...) et que GDUK a choisi Lockheed Martin UK et Rheinmetall comme partenaires industriels pour proposer la tourelle de 40 mm sur une base ASCOD 2.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/wednesday/duckworth.pdf

Donc en fait, General Dynamics et Rheinmetall sont aussi des concurrents sur les produits et systèmes canonniers multi-rapide, multi tubes avec les produits de la gamme GAU et ceux de Oerlikon/Concraves/Rheinmetall 35 mm.

Donc, on ne sait pas exactement qui va équiper les FRES UV et FRES SV en canon et quel calibre.

[P4]

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php?topic=4392.msg559433#msg559433

Tant que l'on y est, as-tu une source pour dire que le programme FRES SV UK est mort-né, quasiment défunt.

Ces derniers temps la Grande Bretagne est coutumière des fausses couches en matière de génération de programmes d'équipements blindés comme ce fut le cas avec le FRES UV.

Et il y a cet article:(Published: 18 September 2011)

U.K. May Ax Medium Vehicles

LONDON - When the boss of General Dynamics UK told reporters Sept. 15 that the British Army's biggest equipment program could be delayed or axed, it signaled more than just another problem for the U.K.'s torturous efforts to build a medium-weight armored vehicle fleet.

It flagged the wider budgetary problem that land commanders are grappling with, as additional savings are demanded beyond the government's recent strategic defense and security review.

General Dynamics UK signed a 500 million pound ($789.5 million) deal with the Conservative-led government in July 2010 to develop and demonstrate a scout vehicle and three other specialist support vehicle types based on its ASCOD platform. They will equip the Army's new brigade reconnaissance regiments.

Including a manufacturing phase and a Ministry of Defence plan for the Army to use the same common ASCOD platform to provide numerous other capabilities, the original deal could have involved building more than 1,200 vehicles at a cost of several billion pounds.

That's now at risk, according to Sandy Wilson, the managing director of the U.K. arm of U.S. company General Dynamics.

At a dinner with reporters on the sidelines of the Defence & Security Equipment International exhibition here last week, Wilson's welcome speech had a sting in its tail, when he revealed the company was talking with the Ministry of Defence about a likely delay and even possibly an end to the specialist vehicle program.

"I think they will find a mechanism to keep it going, maybe by moving bits of the program around. We are most likely talking about a delay," Wilson said.

Nobody is saying yet how long that delay might be.

Reducing numbers or stretching out deliveries are other options, but company officials here said that so far, none of the numbers talked about fall outside the original parameters agreed to by the two sides.

One industry source here said that the disappearance of the medium-weight capability vehicles would greatly alter the Future Force 2020 plans to restructure Britain's armed forces.

Like the other services, the Army has been hit with capability cuts and a big reduction in manpower over the next few years to help balance the books in the ministry, which has had to reduce spending by nearly 8 percent over the next four years. It also has to remove a black hole in unfunded commitments of at least 38 billion pounds over the coming decade that were left by the previous Labour administration.

Efforts to balance the books have continued since the strategic defense review began in late 2010. Most recently, a three-month review completed earlier in the summer, aimed at matching resources and capabilities, has made some headway in reducing overspending.

Industry executives and analysts, though, say the review failed to cut the required amount, and efforts are underway to find further reductions.

One effect of the budget reduction is that defense equipment spending is almost at a standstill and has been for some time, said executives at the DSEi exhibition.

Asked by Defense News whether the scout vehicle program could be axed, one MoD insider said that fate could await just about any program right now. Defense Procurement Minister Peter Luff has confirmed that it is "inevitable there will be further changes and reprioritization of the equipment program," the insider said.

Several British industry executives, urgently trying to interest overseas buyers in their equipment at DSEi, said they had heard the Army is likely to be the hardest hit on the program front in the medium term, with several billion pounds to be lopped off its equipment plan over the next few years.

All three military services will soon be responsible for their own equipment budgets under wide-ranging defense reforms announced midyear.

Trevor Taylor, the head of defense industries and society at the Royal United Services Institute, said the Army had been given an indication of how much money it might get for equipment under the new arrangement, and "it's not as much as they had hoped."

The Army was "pretty constrained on vehicle funding," he said.

General Dynamics has previously been the victim of a change of mind by the Ministry of Defence on armored vehicle procurement. In 2008, the then-Labour government canceled talks with the company to supply its Piranha V utility vehicle as part of the Future Rapid Effects System vehicle.

The British have spent hundreds of millions of pounds and well over a decade trying to produce a new family of medium-weight armored vehicles, without a single vehicle being delivered.

The current plan calls for a decision by the MoD in 2013 on a manufacturing contract for about 240 General Dynamics scout vehicles, along with protected mobility reconnaissance support, recovery and repair variants.

Further variants are planned to be delivered in later phases of the program.

The first of the 34-ton scout vehicles, equipped with the government-mandated CTAI 40mm cannon, is planned to be in service around 2016.

The ASCOD variant of the scout is set to replace the long-serving BAE Systems CVR(T) vehicle.

The recent purchase by the Army of updated CVR(T) vehicles, with new hulls and other changes to better adapt to threats in Afghanistan, has made some at the MoD wonder if the appearance of these updated, lighter vehicles may give scope for the General Dynamics program to be pushed back.

But that's not the view of many in the Army, who reckon the vehicle remains short of capability, including an obsolete 30mm cannon.

Industry executives at the show said the Army has for some time been looking at its options and the impact one decision in the vehicle sector will have on another. It's what the Army is calling a "courses of action" review.

This review includes deciding which of the numerous armored vehicle fleets purchased as urgent requirements for the Afghan campaign could be brought into the core equipment program. The MoD confirmed that the specialist vehicle program is being looked at, among other future capability options.

A ministry spokesperson said, "We keep a range of options under consideration regarding future capabilities, including the Scout SV program. No final decisions have been made and premature speculation is not helpful."

Executives said the Army is attempting to re-profile spending in an effort to keep affordable both the Scout and the update program for the Warrior tracked infantry fighting vehicle. Some think it may be a case of one or the other.

The Warrior is the second highest priority program for the Army after the specialist vehicles project.

Lockheed Martin UK is in negotiations with the MoD over a program to sustain Warrior capabilities, including providing a new turret and the CTAI cannon. The number of vehicles and the timing remain unclear for the moment.