Talk:Future Rapid Effect System

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fres/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranhav/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCOUT SV

has been selected and this page needs updating

http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/scoutsv/index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29040182

Phd8511 (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAV

There's a (sort of) article at Generic Vehicle Architecture that appears to be related to FRES. The GAV article needs a lot of wikifying and I'm not sure it would pass WP:GNG. Could/should part of the GAV article be merged into this one - and then perhaps the GAV article be userfied/deleted/redirected? DexDor^(talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FRES in the Iraq Inquiry

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246636/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_section-141.pdf

Will add soon

Cantab1985 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Future Rapid Effect System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future Rapid Effect System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325163611/http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/news/general%20dynamics%20uk%20team%20awarded%20contract%20to%20deliver%20specialist%20vehicle%20for%20british%20army to http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/news/general%20dynamics%20uk%20team%20awarded%20contract%20to%20deliver%20specialist%20vehicle%20for%20british%20army

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Future Rapid Effect System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]