Talk:Future Rapid Effect System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Section removed

I've removed the controversy/conspiracy/paranoia section! The arguments made are insane.

• The UK pulled out of a collaborative European project and started its own project to further European collaboration????
• The vehicles will not be compatible with US forces? Tony Blair and George Bush signed a declaration a few months ago calling for greater interoperability between the US and UK militaries. Anyway different positioning systems don't make forces incompatible, it just means they will have used different satellites to meet in the same place!!! Mark83 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intention was certainly not to spout a Eurosceptic conspiracy. It's a point to note that it has sparked political debate (albeit IMO a minor and questionable one) and could possibly become a multinational project of greater consequence. As such, my purpose was to mention the sole issue of the article given media coverage in recent times. Perhaps it needs more investigation and a less provocative passage. Clue 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of this is that the article now has a 'response to criticism' section, but no mention of any criticism, which an achievement Mr Orwell would be proud of! We really do need a level-headed and referenced report of such criticisms as have been made.

My own (original-research) criticism is that the current plan is for a heavy vehicle - too big for a Hercules to carry, and so far too big for a Chinook to carry. This is going to replace the CVR(T) family, which are easily carried by both Hercules and Chinook (and i've heard of them being carried by a Puma, but don't believe it). I appreciate that they're going to be better-armed and -protected, but they won't be anywhere near as deployable, so they simply won't be a replacement - they'll be an entirely new kind of capability, and while that's lovely, it leaves a Scimitar-sized gap in what the army can do now. Just when we've got medium armour squadrons in the RAC regiments to provide this kind of vital support to light infantry out in the wilds of Afghanistan and such, it's going to be taken away! You also won't be able to fly them off a landing ship, so you can forget about armoured support to amphibious operations too.

Also, i get the impression that the FRES, even the heavy variant, is considered lighter than the Warrior; those are 25 tonnes, and it doesn't seem like the heavy FRES are going to be much lighter, so what's going on there? Why don't we just come up with a modern electronics kit for the Warrior and start building on the basis of that?

-- Tom Anderson 2008-03-07 2011 +0000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.86.107 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of military thinking in the last few years has been about vehicles that are 1. air portable 2. wheel based ( which are cheaper to operate, faster on roads and better for dealing with crowds etc ). The idea is these vehicles will be used whereever the warrior cant or is not needed. Be careful about the weights : I understand that the weight quoted is 'all equipement' of which some could easily be removed for air frieght, the warrior cannot be 'stripped down' in the same way. This is at least the thinking. 81.223.81.160 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)