Under the international Collaborative All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV) programme – including Sweden and Germany – the UK Commando Force will receive 60 Future All-Terrain Vehicles (FATV) starting from February 2025, under a £140 million contract.

The deal will see a total of 436 of the vehicles delivered by BAE Systems across the three European partners, with the engines for all FATVs produced by Cummins in Darlington.

According to a news release, the vehicles will be used by the Navy’s Littoral Response Groups – bespoke, highly-mobile amphibious task groups designed to react to crises in regions strategically important to the UK.

“The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models. Their articulated mobility systems provide optimal manoeuvrability across varying terrains so they can traverse snow, ice, rock, sand, mud or swamps, as well as steep mountain environments. The vehicles’ amphibious feature also allows them to swim in flooded areas or coastal waters, and a logistics variant can carry 6 tonnes of equipment.”

Capable of operating in the harshest weather conditions and most remote environments, the amphibious, multi-role, armoured vehicle will include variants of vehicles for troop transport, logistics, medical evacuation, recovery, and command and control.

Defence Procurement Minister, Alex Chalk said:

“We continue to equip our Armed Forces with the most mobile and resilient capabilities, to support them in operations around the world and Future All-Terrain Vehicles for the Royal Navy are another example of this. This tri-lateral agreement with Sweden and Germany serves to strengthen key alliances and improve interoperability.”

Brigadier Mark Totten, Navy Deputy Director Acquisition, said:

“The signing of the CATV contract is great news for UK Defence and for Commando Forces. This is a unique capability – fundamental for Commando Forces that are expert in operating in the extreme cold weather and across the littoral. The vehicle boasts a number of characteristics that make it perfect for the Future Commando Force: it is adept over snow, has amphibious swimming capability and protects its occupants from several threats. Progressing to contract is a clear statement of the UK’s strong commitment to High North and to working alongside our NATO and JEF partners.”

You can read more on this here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

156 COMMENTS

    • Not going to happen. Ajax is meant to be fixed and doing trials now. Fingers crossed it stays fixed and comes into service soon. It’s needed urgently
      These new vehicles should be great. But the sounds of the article they are keeping the newer Viking’s to serve alongside these.

      • Also isn’t the contract for Ajax a fixed price so we won’t be loosing money due to the delays or have I just completely made that up.

        • The contract is fixed so it’ll come out of GD’s pocket, but obviously delaying the delivery timeline still incur costs for the MoD as existing kit is kept around for longer.

          • Erm you need to consult your procurement 101 dictionary –

            Firm priced contract- it can move.

            Fixed priced contract, it can be added to.

            Worst contract possible. We pay for their mistakes.

      • I believe they are replacing all Vikings (99) with these 60.

        Royal Navy release – The UK’s Commando Forces will receive 60 of the Future All-Terrain Vehicles (FATVs) from 2025 to replace its current fleet of Vikings and the older Bv 206 – which has been an icon of Arctic deployments for years.

        So replacing all Vikings and Bv 206.

        Maybe we will order some more at a later date ?

          • Once an equipment is replaced it follows that it has been formally declared obsolete and is sold, gifted or scrapped ASAP with all tools, spares, publications etc. We don’t keep old kit in storage.

          • Yup

            But there are grey areas like the Merlin shells, CH1 & CH2 hulls that stay around or the excess M270’s that are being resurrected from all sorts of unlikely places. Some of these will be non upgraded versions that have a decent level of parts commonality.

            As well as various missiles, that we all thought had been scrapped long ago, that seem to travel via C17 to Mr Zelenski.

            On the other hand, I would agree that, the level of ‘kept for reserve’ is pitiful.

          • I am not aware of the story with the Merlin shells.

            I was the MoD Equipment Support Manager who disposed of the CR1 fleet (not CH, as that stood for Chieftain) after they were declared Obsolete – I disposed most of the fleet to Jordan and also some tanks went to units as gate guardians and also to museums and (I think) a few to REME as recovery hulks. I don’t recall that we kept any back for WW3!

            CR2 is of course not Obsolete, yet the fleet in service has reduced over the years – from 386 delivered to 227 operational now (in the Field Force and Trg Org), so 159 are in storage (as I know that none have been sold and am fairly sure none have been scrapped). There will be a similar story with M270 ie not declared Obsolete (as they are still in service) but the number operational now is fewer than those purchased so some have been in storage.

            The cost of keeping Obsolete equipment in storage would be very high (happy to elaborate) and the equipment would have limited capability compared to more modern in-servcie equipment and there would be few personnel who would know how to operate it.

            We do have numbers of current in-service equipment (ie not declared Obsolete) in storage in varying states of ‘preservation’ and in various categories – Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve (was called War Maintenance Reserve) and Surplus to Requirement. The 159 CR2s are an example of this.

          • And that policy has turned out really brilliantly. The issue is the UK never ever updates the stuff they just completely clap the hell out of it and then throw it away.

          • Is that not the point of owning military kit tho? Train and use it as if it were war conditions. Learn how to fix it under these conditions. Be the best at using your kit and replace it when it’s all used up.
            The efforts museums have to go to to keep older stuff working is massive and that’s only for one vehicle of a type for the odd event.
            Now just need to work on the replacing part.

          • Not totally true. SA80 (L85) has been upgraded twice. CR2 is being upgraded to CR3 standard. We used to upgrade everything.

          • “Perfectly useable? Have you been in any of them? IMHO, I thought they were past their best 15 years ago. They rattle enough to warrant hearing loss compo claims.

            Yes, into storage, once overhauled as far as they can be. They should not go to Ukraine, we need to keep them, even in 20 years they’ll be handy if it kicks off.

        • I’d asked this the other day when SB reported this. If these replace Viking AND the 206 that is a big drop.

          When Viking was aquirred for the Commandos they’d reorganised into Close and Stand Off Companies, I recall each Stand Off Company was to be equipped with Viking, with this the direct replacement.

          After they were amalgamated into the RM ASG which remains at Yeovilton.

          The 206 is used by other elements too, like 29RA and I wonder whether just 60 is sufficient to replace both these and Viking.

          This is of course balanced by the current changes to the RM as part of FCF, with one commando, Four Two, no longer needing these with its change of role.

          • Agree with you mate. Think we’ve missed a trick here. Only supplying enough for the LRGs and their immediate support. What happens when we need to reinforce said LRG? Personally I think we should also have equipped 2 LI battalions with them- costs I know, but at least you get a credible force mounted in the same vehicles to offer support.

          • What always puzzles is the absence of the “High North” strategy of the MoD in Future Soldier. I know the arctic role is RM centric but reinforcement of Norway could have an army component, like you say possibly LI Bns.

            I guess 7 LMBCT on Foxhound or 4 LBCT would augment the LRG if necessary, though I don’t think the formations involved in the raiding role are greater than a RM Company.

          • I bow, as always, to your great knowledge – big respect. I just wonder if they have factored in the Finns coming into NATO, therefore being able to scale back any UK any “Northern Soldier” effort?

          • You would think Finland joining would make it an even more important front. NATO could grab Murmansk in 45 minutes now and St Petersburg in a day.

          • The Finns need their own equipment tbh. The 60 load out will allow for first stage deployment, but it leaves the cupboard bare when you would want to reinforce the chaps already on the ground. I wouldn’t want to be on the far north lines knowing the mobility of the reinforcing formation would have issues as we are short on the numbers

          • Does the army have any plans? The marines have a purpose. So does the navy and the RAF.
            If the army put plans, deployments in place for reinforcing nato areas it is then in a better position for letting government know what it needs to do these roles. Supporting nato is going to be the main mission for the next decade. Also supporting nato countries transfers quite well into being able to deploy anywhere else.

          • …and for the uk our first emphasis will be on supporting Scandinavian assets while others concentrate further south, when you see the number Sweden are getting it really puts into perspective what is required to seriously carry that out. Always worry that we like the pr of signing off to support allies without actually following through with what is actually required to do so…. It’s almost like we think we will never have to follow through and even recent events make me feel we don’t fully get the responsibilities we are signing up to.

          • The solution is clear. If fire-fighters go on strike: call in the army. If the bin men go on strike, call in the army. If the ambulance drivers go on strike, call in the army. They have the plans, ageing equipment, training and everything they need.

            So all we need is for the marines to threaten to strike, and the army will have all the Vikings put in storage instead of being sold off.

          • I think the Army’s main plan is to keep switching around its deployable combat formations to get the most likes on you tube and keep as many cap badges as possible. Beyond that there is no plan. 😀

        • The article reads: “The FATVs will be in-service until 2058, replacing the BV206 tracked and older BvS 10 ‘Viking’ models.
          Guess we will wait and see

    • What’s with this obsession with replacing Ajax with CV90.
      Yes sunk cost fallacy is a thing, but stopping a program and completely restarting it also has a huge cost attached to it.

      • Our allies are all selecting the cv90 and therefore just on an interoperability perspective it would make logical sense also it is proven and can be delivered working quickly

        • They are choosing cv90 for their IFVs. Ajax is recce, fire support etc. our IFV will end up as Boxer, wheeled or tracked. We’ve ordered 600+ with 1000+ budgeted and an aspiration for 1300. Plenty of scope to add armament in future orders. Meanwhile, Warrior soldiers on.

        • And swapping horses now would mean having to find an extra few billion to order a bunch of vehicles we’ve already got on order…
          Yeah you’d get interoperability, you’d also be lucky to get half the current Ajax order.

      • Oh, you’ve also noticed🙄
        Maybe someone needs to do an article on the differences between IFV, APC, and Recc vehicles, as so many posters want Ajax binned and CV90 of all things in its place.

        • Think that would be a pretty good article tbh. One of the reasons why I like navylook as it does some good indepth unbiased articles.

        • In fairness, there is a Recce version of the CV90 currently in service with the Norwegian army I believe. Not sure how good it is, but it exists at least?

          • The army was probably unsure as to what it wanted to replace CVRT with as it is a very unique vehicle. It chose to have a vehicle with all the possible equipment and my guess is the recce variant of the CV90 doesn’t cut it and would need to also be modified.

          • CVRT is far from unique. During the cold war there was a whole slew of light recce tanks that sat in the 4-15t range (M551, Wiesel, PT-76 etc). The only thing that makes it unique is that most light tanks where replaced by IFV derived recce vehicles in the ~30t range a long time ago, while CVRT hung on.

            Nor was the army really all that confused about what they wanted to replace it, if you look at the Ajax family they are almost exactly like for like replacements of the CVRT roles, but the can got kicked down the road, primarily due to Afghan and the lack of investment/interest in armour.

            As for Ajax over CV90? It’s a false start as a comparison, because the MoD had the choice of ASCOD or CV90, and then modification. Really, what it came down to is that CV90 was BAe and the MoD was trying to break it’s monopoly. Buying the Norwegian CV90 variant now, off the shelf, certainly is possible (remember that vehicle didn’t exist in 2010 when GD won the contract), but why would you do it? You’d have to start an entirely new procurement process, when you’ve already paid for Ajax.

          • What does Ajax have that CV-90 doesn’t, except for weight and noise problems? The CV-90 has an extendable mast for surveillance and is way more fighty with the option of integrated Spike missiles for recce in force.

        • To be honest Ajax as a platform is not a bespoke Recce vehicle in the same way Scimitar is. Ajax is itself a development of an IFV and it is its add on sensors that make it a recce platform. So suggesting CV90 as a Ajax alternative is not so far fetched as CV90 is used in the Recce role by some of its users and was indeed a close run up in the selection process for CVRT replacement after the ASCOD option. Although money at this point would make any last minute change to CV90 unrealistic.

          • Ajax is a very modified Ascod. I think it’s shorter, heavier, different inside, armour, turret, engine, running gear. I’m fact it pretty much is a new vehicle.

        • CV90 has recce variant and can do IFV and APC roles.

          There is one more important element. Commonality with NATO allies. With your knowledge of our lack of CS CSS, I’d of thought you’d have picked up on that one Daniele.

      • We need CV90 to replace Warrior not AJAX. Ajax is a Recce asset not an IFV. Unless we put a decent gun on Boxer we will be the only Tier 1 army in NATO without an IFV . I’m just back from Estonia, Tapa, and although small in numbers even they have an IFV – CV90 in fact

        • Reality is COTS CV90 is now unaffordable, The money is spent, and there’s a whole in the equipment budget.

          Simple. And if you can’t grasp that you have a problem.

    • Why? Ajax has now completed its User Validation Trials following rectification and is embarking on Reliability Growth Trials.

    • Only problem with that is where is the chinook coming from. The littoral response group idea doesn’t have any ships that have capability to have hangers large enough for Chinooks.

      • Come on don’t let actual problems get in the way of a good idea.
        What we need is airdropped chinooks out of C130. Oh wait,
        Got it, we could put the chinooks on the big RFA replen ships,
        what do u mean we don’t have them anymore?
        Plan C we use the migrant traffickers to dinghy the vehicles to the conflict zone.
        Sorted.

      • Could base them on a Strike Carrier further out to sea and lillypad them to shore using the LRG. I mean that’s the option I see but then the whole LRG thing makes absolutely feck all sense to me beyond a bit of anti-piracy/counter-terrorism work.

        • My thought process is once they need the carriers in the area to operate at all, why bother forward deploying them, as it just brings extra cost for no actual capability improvement.

          The whole program makes no sense to me as any forward deployed force would be too small to do anything useful without reinforcements.

      • Fair point, we need a couple LHDs or LPHs and I think that’s why there has been no decision on MRSS. I reckon Radakin wants a couple of LHDs or LPHs . In the meantime you can land a Chinook on a Bay Class and will be able to land one on a T26. I’d bet the mods to Argus will enable her to carry one, maybe 2.

      • Sweden? Maybe. But Germany? I’m pretty sure that the order is a partial replacement for the vehicles currently in use by 23 Gebirgsjaeger Brigade, which is roughly similar in size to 3 Cmdo Brigade. I think the big difference is that 23 GB has a mech Infantry battalion in it’s orbat (Gebirgsjaegerbattalion 231) while 3 CB only has the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group.

        (Not neither the Commandos, nor the Gebirgsjaeger are fully replacing their legacy vehicles with this order).

          • Lets compare the two formations being fitted out:

            3 Cmdo Bde is (effectively):
            -30 Cmdo (ISTAR)
            -42 Cmdo (Specialist Troops)
            -40 Cmdo (Light Infantry)
            -45 Cmdo (Light Infantry)
            -RM Armoured Support Group (Armoured Support)
            -Raiding Group (Boat support)
            -29 RA (Artillery)

            23 GB Bde is:
            -Gebirgsaufklärungsbataillon 230 (Recce/Specialist Troops)
            -Gebirgsjägerbataillon 232 (Light Infantry)
            -Gebirgsjägerbataillon 233 (Light Infantry)
            -Gebirgsjägerbataillon 231 (Mechanised Infantry)

            In terms of size they are directly comparable formations. In case you don’t know, Gebirgsjaeger’s job is to fight in Mountain Terrain, they even have a pack animal Coy to supply them in terrain where vehicles and helicopters can’t reach.

          • “Per Mare, Per Aerem” The Global Theatre Entry Regiment. Bin P-Coy (it’s silly, it’s just a Phys test) and make the Commando course, which actually has a focus on Tactics, common to both Units.
            The RM then get their doctrine and training programs updated, and can make better use of Army Capbadges (no more spending 3 years training up a Royal Marine only to tell him “Great, now we expect you to be an intelligence analyst!).

          • Interesting. I’m a traditionalist at heart, so I prefer two such elite organisations kept separate just for that reason. Not a valid reason I know, just me.

            I remember the idea of merging the two brigades was floated in 2015 when Fallon was DS.

            I assume the Int trade in RM is quite small? Int Section with each Cdo and larger numbers with 30 Cdo ( Bde HQ / Y Sqn, BPS ) and at Poole or elsewhere with Purple units.

            Obviously the Bde uses certain army cap badges in some numbers, RA, RLC, RE, but I cannot recall any IC units dedicated?

            Agree an Int Analyst seems a waste after training a Light Infantryman to that level.

          • It’s not just Int. RMs complete commando training then spend 2 years as “GDs” (General Duties), basically a bod in a commando unit. After that they specialise, which often means a pid in the Commando Logistic Regiment, or a stint in Litchfield retraining as a Medic, or Int Analyst etc.
            If RM and Paras where amalgamated all those RM pids would be streamlined into the Army Cap Badges, existing personnel would retain RM cap badge but rather than GD->Specialise it would just be RAMC/RLC/IC etc personnel coming through, while RMs would stay in their infantry/Commando specialisation.

            That and doctrinally the RM lag behind the Army which needs to change. Amalgamation would allow RM training to come in line with Brecon and be up to date. Hell if 16 and 3 where under the same banner you could beef up 3 Cmdo a bit, put a Line Infantry Battalion as a punchier support unit, like 1 RI/1RGR in 16, or the way the Geburgsjaeger are supported by a mechanised Battalion.

            …you could even F Gen a third Division in theory, or reorg 1 and 3 XX (3XX: 1, 12, 20, 7. 1XX: 3, 4, 16, 19)

          • Thanks for the explanation Dern. There’s a good PDF on Corps trades I looked at after for additional reading.

            Is there any real movement to this from within or is this just you and other serving personnel own ideas based on your own experience?

            Adds a lot more posts to the Army if it means complete removal from the navy.

            The Corps seems to have moved in the other direction and further away from the Army with the FCF raiding from LRGs concept and loss of 3 Cdo as a fully deployable brigade like it was in Helmand, be it with army support.

          • If you were a Marine looking at the Navy and then the Army and comparing them would you want to switch ?

          • I think there’s some occsional push from within the services, as was mentioned the idea was floated in 15, but there is too much institutional resistance from the Reg and the Corps for it to be realistic, and the King is a Para, I doubt anyone will amalgamate them while he’s around.

          • That and doctrinally the RM lag behind the Army which needs to change. Amalgamation would allow RM training to come in line with Brecon and be up to date.
            Seriously ? OK ! 😂😂

          • I mean yes? The RM dismounted doctrine is about 15 years behind the rest of the infantry, because lessons learned by the Army are not absorbed by the corps.

          • I’m not going to say I’m against it! We need to have a useable and multi role organisation, which can have a centralised and simplified C2! There are many positives to an amalgamation but, it’s the CS and the CSS who would be at risk! The MOD would see it as a way of getting rid of 50% of supporting arms!

            P Coy will need to remain for the attached arms, and a 5 day P Coy when at Catterick isn’t a big issue. But, re-role/cross train but keep the history of all units, it’s hard to argue against mate. Cheers! (Wow you can see how much I’ve matured over the years) 😂👍

          • Throwing a placeholder here will reply more filly to you and Daniele when I have the time these comments deserve.

          • Okay so;
            CS and CSS I’d hope wouldn’t be at risk since the amalgamation of cap badges shouldn’t be the amalgamation of brigades, nor, necessarily of roles. I’d imagine a more streamlined recruiting and training program, but with individual battalions/commandos still having distinct roles. So much like any other regiment would have Battalions in Light, Armoured and Mechanised Roles, a amalgamated Para/Commando regiment would have Battalions in raiding, air assault, and fleet protection roles (just as examples off the top of my head).

            When I say scrap P Coy I don’t really mean “scrap a selection/qualification process” I mean there should be a common course that’s harder than standard catterick, and has an all arms variant for sure that would get you our winged dagger. My personal opinion (for what it’s worth as a hat) is that I’d prefer to see it a bit more tactically focused than the pure phys event that P-Coy currently is.

            Certainly re-rolling, re-capbadging and keeping history is a difficult balancing act, look no further than the the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Rifles, or another recently established regiment that starts with R, sometimes it’s done successfully (I’d argue Rifles did it succesfully, the Rangers seem to have gotten off to a good start, and RRoS did it poorly), sometimes it isn’t, and it’s a real balancing act.

          • Pretty much what I have previously thought about and mentioned, with all the units have a role specific tasking, therefore keeping their respective “speciality”. Although I do think it would be a tough task for the head sheds to keep a full and balanced CS and CSS when they think they could save a few quid and a few PIDs. Although, maybe in the current and future climate, Ukraine, unstable Russia etc that the suits are actually a little more aware that war is always just around the corner.

            I think the SFSG are a bit of a snap shot of it in action, albeit more of a niche role at this time. As for selection, there will always need to be a selection process, which reflects the standards, aspirations and aim of each formation. But, saying that all the CS and CSS elements need an uplift anyway, never mind a penny pinching reduction. Cheers mate.

          • Good point re SFSG, 1 Para/ F Coy / Flight – 2 Sqn RAF Reg. It is also comparatively new so little in the way of ingrained historical resistance. I’d read it was originally a way for General Jackson to save a Para Bn? Not sure of the truth of that?

            I’d hope logic dictates that the CS / CSS would be moved to another brigade that needs them, example, 4 LBCT. But we love our CS/CSS mate and we know how they like to cut them at every opportunity!

          • Ref Jacko and the SFSG, more truth in your statement mate about saving a Bn, but never proven until grumpy Jacko admits it! As for CS and CSS, war is about who can move the most, the fastest and furthest! Fighting just disrupts logistics lol! We can be the hardest, fittest, toughest, best trained, big tash cigar smoking gucci kitted out crazy warrior in the field, but without our CS and CSS we are just a group of people who after a few days become a hindrance!

            Once again Ukraine has shown you can claim to be this and that but without an effective, trained, practiced and professional logistic chain, operating in a fully combined arms battle, you are in fact one large waste of resources, who becomes combat ineffective very very quickly! We love our CS/CSS mate for sure, not always glamorous but the solid shaft which holds the spear tip!

          • Steady on old chap and the answer is no to the 206, then, to your other comment mmmmmm maybe!!!!! Sacrilege I know but there you go!

          • Well all the front line vikings are held in the armoured support group. I meant the number of battalions they have to support has shrunk as I believe 42 commando has re-roled to a more specialist role.

    • Remember, Four Two is different role now, so 1 of the 3 Infantry centric Commando no longer need this capability.

      I share concern re the numbers though, especially if these replace the 206 too.

      • Sorry is this a cut back then in the near future of the older models of these vehicles ? if the Ukraine war has shown we cant just bin off older models when replacing them with new , we need a reserve.

        • That is still uncertain. I hope not. A cut is a cut regards Viking to newer, 99 to 60, but as I said with one Commando less needing them they can argue it that way.

  5. Wow 60 vehicles for £140 million from a British company with significant UK industrial participation and exports.

    Anyone starting to think maybe the RM should handle UK vehicle procurement for the Army.

  6. Sounds like a good idea. The USMC are developing a LAV replacement too. Capable of swimming ashore from several miles out. Something like that would have been good in 1982.

    • I’m not sure they would swim in Down South conditions…..calm waters maybe in the coves as an alternate to ramps of pontoons which take a while to set up.

      • Amphibious doesn’t have to mean 3km from ship to shore in rough seas. Just 100m from sandbar to shore out of a LCU is a good enough capability to offer lots more options, as are river crossings and so on.

    • Amphibious armour vehicles are not really very boat like. The LAV family for instance cannot manage any sea state and are for enclosed inland waterways only. Even the AAVs have now been had a ban on their use in sea and ocean environments except for in emergencies ( so no training or anything else). They have an unfortunate tendency to sink like stones killing all embarked.

  8. Though definitely not a Warrior, think more of an up-armoured Mastiff, so Bullldog APC levels of protection. They didn’t do to badly in Afghan.

  9. What happens if any light vehicle drives into an Ambush? The only way to counter act that is to make every single vehicle an MBT with Trophy, and ERA.

        • Brings to mind briefings attended during GW I, especially a videotaped interview w/ an RAF Tornado pilot and WSO, describing a bombing run on a runway. Pilot described the roll in to the bomb run at X ft AGL and the WSO pickling out several Paveways. Then the interviewer asked what occurred next and the pilot stated that they retreated bravely at maximum Mach. Entire auditorium audience convulsed in laughter; not the macho answer anticipated. 😁

  10. Maybe the Army could use the Marines cast offs, until Ajax, Eurysaces, Philaeus or whoever else comes along, to replace Warriors?

  12. Welcome obviously, but 60 to replace 90 to 100. It’s the story of everything we do. I wonder where they’re going. Far north maybe?

  13. This is a positive story and a step in the right direction but having 60 vehicles replace 99 just shows that out defence procurement is run by bean counters who have no idea of battle damage/breakdown/surge deployments. I just hope this will be followed by anouther 40 at least to help give the Commando forces the flexibility they need.

    • The accommodation I’ve seen at 5 locations was always fine. The Single base accommodation and the houses. There may be some issues but it’s not at every accommodation. I wonder how it compares with overall housing stock for problems?
      Has there been a big change in forces accommodation recently that would warrant an article?
      The website owners welcome articles from anyone if you have something you could write

      • Oops wrong! But never mind, your including all arms trained attached arms from the Army! But like I said, subject matter is beyond you! Hurry with the battered cod pal.

    • It’s probably only the start.

      <a href=”https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/sweden-germany-united-kingdom-jointly-acquire-436-bae-systems-bvs10-all-terrain-vehicles”>Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom jointly acquire 436 BAE Systems BvS10 all-terrain vehicles</a>

      <i>”The CATV program includes a framework agreement that could lead to the purchase of more vehicles by the three nations, keeping the BvS10, the world’s leading all-terrain vehicle, in production for many years to come. Sweden is the lead nation and has established a joint procurement office to lead the effort with representatives from all three nations.”</i>

  18. Sorry is this a cut back then in the near future of the older models of these vehicles ? if the Ukraine war has shown we cant just bin off older models when replacing them with new , we need a reserve.

    • Agree with your sentiments, it’s not clear is it mind but one hopes it is not a straight one in near two out replacement. If the Govt hasn’t learned that now, then they never will but I guess Hedge Fund Managers may see things differently.

  19. These FATV have some excellent capabilities. I know from the chaps that were testing them, they say the prototype was like being in the Starship Enterprise while the knackard old Viking’s are the Model T. The ability of these things will take some of the backbreaking work out of the AW work in Norway.
    I approve of this MOD purchase, if buying in this method on a more PAN European basis means we can get this cheaper/better for the capability, I’m all for it.

  20. Rushi Sunak has asked Ukraine for an update on the progress of the war.
    Any guesses what he’ll do when he learns it won’t be over for Christmas?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here